Three Men Charged with Plotting Attack on Somali Immigrants in Kansas

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's bordering on a Straw Man.

Obviously these guys are terrorists...however, if your expectations are that the world should now be just as afraid or concerned about "The Crusaders" (as they call themselves) as they are of Islamic radicalism, then your expectations are misguided.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't acknowledge that these guys were "extremists", "terrorists", "radicals", etc...

However, that's not what the underlying purpose of bringing that sort of thing up is... People bring that up so that they accuse political opponents of double-standards and bigotry.

"Oh, so I guess when it's white Christians groups doing these sorts of things, you don't care about it and just want to focus on Islamic extremism!!!" is the narrative that people are trying to portray.

That's not the case at all. When the severity and magnitude reach equitable levels, and people are still only focused on the Islamic occurrences, then you have a valid gripe.

Until then, it's like saying "Gee, the common cold and HIV are both caused by viruses, why are you more concerned about one than the other?"
It's not a "strawman" it's a "direct quote". Which is why I'm using it.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually he's getting it from a pretty logical conclusion based on their speech (which sounds like for the most part, stuff you could hear at pretty much any Trump rally), as well as them calling themselves "Crusaders". So......
"Crusaders"? Soun like militant atheists to me. Or possibly Muslims operating under a false flag to throw us off... I mean come on people, use your imagination!
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
That's bordering on a Straw Man.

Obviously these guys are terrorists...however, if your expectations are that the world should now be just as afraid or concerned about "The Crusaders" (as they call themselves) as they are of Islamic radicalism, then your expectations are misguided.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't acknowledge that these guys were "extremists", "terrorists", "radicals", etc...

However, that's not what the underlying purpose of bringing that sort of thing up is... People bring that up so that they accuse political opponents of double-standards and bigotry.

"Oh, so I guess when it's white Christians groups doing these sorts of things, you don't care about it and just want to focus on Islamic extremism!!!" is the narrative that people are trying to portray.

That's not the case at all. When the severity and magnitude reach equitable levels, and people are still only focused on the Islamic occurrences, then you have a valid gripe.


Until then, it's like saying "Gee, the common cold and HIV are both caused by viruses, why are you more concerned about one than the other?"

Are the severity and and magnitude not already weighted highly in favor of the non Muslim attacks? The FBI seems to think they are the more pertinent threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are the severity and and magnitude not already weighted highly in favor of the non Muslim attacks? The FBI seems to think they are the more pertinent threat.

I would have to see some data to suggest that US-based, Anti-Islamic, Christian militant groups are causing the kinds of havoc as Islamic extremism...or even have the numbers or capability to do so.

Like I said before, these guys were definitely terrorists and extremists...but it seems like there's this expectation from many on the left that if society doesn't immediately put them in the same bucket with ISIS (in terms of the level of public fears and concerns) that it's somehow an indicator of bigotry or "trying to favor Christianity over Islam".

...which, that's not the case for the majority of people. Sure, there are some who would probably fall into that category (bigots, Christians who want to protect their own brand, etc...)...however, for the majority of people, the reason why they don't seem as worried about "The Crusaders" is because the Crusaders aren't causing such panic that people are fleeing the country by the tens of thousands, there's no videos of the Crusaders cutting someone's head off or tossing gays off of rooftops, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an instance of a US-based Christian militant group racking up that kind of body count without having to go all the way back decades ago to the KKK in the deep south to find an example of that level of impact.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's not a "strawman" it's a "direct quote". Which is why I'm using it.

Was it a quote from someone in a different thread?

When I quoted you, that was post #5...the other posters up until that point were the OP, and another person who did acknowledge that "The Crusaders" were terrorists.

So, without knowing who you were quoting, it came across as strawmanning.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Was it a quote from someone in a different thread?

When I quoted you, that was post #5...the other posters up until that point were the OP, and another person who did acknowledge that "The Crusaders" were terrorists.

So, without knowing who you were quoting, it came across as strawmanning.
Yeah. A different thread. And news columns and reports. And idiots in the street. And on and on. Amazingly, some of us remember things from outside he current thread we're in. Google it, see how many hits you get. Check these forums, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tatteredsoul
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I would have to see some data to suggest that US-based, Anti-Islamic, Christian militant groups are causing the kinds of havoc as Islamic extremism...or even have the numbers or capability to do so.

That seems rather artificially limited to me. Why not just look at US based extremists? I did a quick search that said 80% of the attacks since 9/11 have been US based non Muslim groups. I do not know how accurate that number is but I do know the FBI has said the majority of their focus is Christian based extremists (followed by environmental extremists I believe).

Like I said before, these guys were definitely terrorists and extremists...but it seems like there's this expectation from many on the left that if society doesn't immediately put them in the same bucket with ISIS (in terms of the level of public fears and concerns) that it's somehow an indicator of bigotry or "trying to favor Christianity over Islam".

Actually I think what most who opine on this issue are trying to say is that it is foolish to focus on the small external threat while ignoring the much more pressing issues of the internal groups. While I can see why some might consider it bigotry I think it is more about how bad humans are at assessing degree of threat. Islamic Terrorism is presented in our media as such an issue that people put undue weight on that as a problem when there are much more cost effective measures and areas we should be focusing on.


...which, that's not the case for the majority of people. Sure, there are some who would probably fall into that category (bigots, Christians who want to protect their own brand, etc...)...however, for the majority of people, the reason why they don't seem as worried about "The Crusaders" is because the Crusaders aren't causing such panic that people are fleeing the country by the tens of thousands, there's no videos of the Crusaders cutting someone's head off or tossing gays off of rooftops, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an instance of a US-based Christian militant group racking up that kind of body count without having to go all the way back decades ago to the KKK in the deep south to find an example of that level of impact.

Yes, but that is exactly the issue. The perceived threat of Islamic terrorism is high but the actual threat is from them is very small.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That seems rather artificially limited to me. Why not just look at US based extremists? I did a quick search that said 80% of the attacks since 9/11 have been US based non Muslim groups.

Because that wouldn't be a valid comparison...that would be taking it too far in the other direction.

"US Based Extremists" is an extremely broad category, while "Islamic Extremism" is narrowing down to a specific ideology and thought process.

...and, there can be significant overlap between those two labels. For example, the San Bernardino incident would qualify as both since the aggressor fit both categories.

Anti-abortion terrorism
Anti-government terrorism
Anti-Semitic terrorism
Anti-Islamic terrorism
Anti-Gay terrorism
Racial Terrorism
Eco-Terrorism
Christian Terrorism

Then you have hate groups like the KKK who are a hate-based organization, but in terms of actual violent acts committed, have been pretty much neutered.

Then you have gangs who, in all reality, should be labeled as terrorist groups (based on kill count alone), but aren't...

etc...

...those are all brands of US-based extremism, and for each of those from 1990 until present day, you'd be hard pressed to find one that, by itself, has the same body count and number of high-profile attacks.

Yes, but that is exactly the issue. The perceived threat of Islamic terrorism is high but the actual threat is from them is very small.

Even when you do the math on it, Islamic extremism (in terms of body count) is still way over-represented in terms of the numbers.

If you think of it this way. The Muslim population in the US is just over 3 million.
Based on polling data pertaining to certain social attitudes (on women, free speech, separation of church & stay, gays, secularism, etc...), only 9% hold views that would be considered concerning or "extreme". That means 270,000 may have views that could lead to concerning behavior (and in actuality, that number is probably much smaller because even if a person says they'd want to do something, very few would actually have the guts to do it).

That means that a group 270,000 (likely much smaller) is responsible for 20% of all terror attacks.

And, in my own personal opinion, that 20% number is actually low-balling due to a watering down of the word "attack".

If it's the same set of FBI stats I looked at about a year back. They lump property damage, vandalism, and minor assault in the same category as mass shootings and other events where there is actual loss of life or injury.

We can honestly look and say "yeah, spray-painting a Swastika on a Jewish temple is an act of hate, and it's an act intimidation"

...however, in terms of what's going to make the public scared/concerned/paranoid, spray-painting a hate symbol on the side of a building or 1-2 people getting beat up doesn't fall in the same category as the San Bernardino or the Orlando shootings.

I understand that people want to be sensitive to other groups, and they don't want to appear as bigots or politically incorrect on the topic of Islam...but as I've said before, to pretend that "other groups are just as bad", or watering down the term "terrorist attack" in order to pad the statistics for other forms of extremism so they can come out with the 20% statistic is intellectually dishonest and, as Sam Harris said, "being deliberately ignorant about the problem"

If you want to know why people are more scared of one than that other, you just need to honestly consider the following numbers (and for the sake of fairness, we'll ignore 9/11 since I understand that grossly skews the numbers):

Fort Hood Shooting: 13 dead, 33 injured
Boston Marathon Bombing: 3 dead, 183 injuries
San Bernardino Attack: 14 dead, 22 injured
Orlando Nightclub Shooting: 49 dead, 53 injured

Now let's compare that to some of the other forms of terrorism discussed above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

KKK - hasn't killed anyone since 1981
Left Wing Extremist groups - haven't killed anyone since 1983
Eco Extremists (like ALF) - property damage
White Nationalist Terrorism - Charleston Church Shooting, Wisconsin Temple shooting...body count of the two events combined: 16 dead, 5 injured -- prior to those two events, that last incident involving physical harm was years ago.
Anti-abortion attacks...most occurences, however, fatalities are rare and 90% of it is property damage.

If you notice, there's one example listed where it highlights what I was talking about before about the watering down of the term "attack".

1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.

So, apparently causing $100 worth of damage is the same as 50+ casualties.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Because that wouldn't be a valid comparison...that would be taking it too far in the other direction.

"US Based Extremists" is an extremely broad category, while "Islamic Extremism" is narrowing down to a specific ideology and thought process.

...and, there can be significant overlap between those two labels. For example, the San Bernardino incident would qualify as both since the aggressor fit both categories.

Anti-abortion terrorism
Anti-government terrorism
Anti-Semitic terrorism
Anti-Islamic terrorism
Anti-Gay terrorism
Racial Terrorism
Eco-Terrorism
Christian Terrorism

Then you have hate groups like the KKK who are a hate-based organization, but in terms of actual violent acts committed, have been pretty much neutered.

Then you have gangs who, in all reality, should be labeled as terrorist groups (based on kill count alone), but aren't...

etc...

...those are all brands of US-based extremism, and for each of those from 1990 until present day, you'd be hard pressed to find one that, by itself, has the same body count and number of high-profile attacks.



Even when you do the math on it, Islamic extremism (in terms of body count) is still way over-represented in terms of the numbers.

If you think of it this way. The Muslim population in the US is just over 3 million.
Based on polling data pertaining to certain social attitudes (on women, free speech, separation of church & stay, gays, secularism, etc...), only 9% hold views that would be considered concerning or "extreme". That means 270,000 may have views that could lead to concerning behavior (and in actuality, that number is probably much smaller because even if a person says they'd want to do something, very few would actually have the guts to do it).

That means that a group 270,000 (likely much smaller) is responsible for 20% of all terror attacks.

And, in my own personal opinion, that 20% number is actually low-balling due to a watering down of the word "attack".

If it's the same set of FBI stats I looked at about a year back. They lump property damage, vandalism, and minor assault in the same category as mass shootings and other events where there is actual loss of life or injury.

We can honestly look and say "yeah, spray-painting a Swastika on a Jewish temple is an act of hate, and it's an act intimidation"

...however, in terms of what's going to make the public scared/concerned/paranoid, spray-painting a hate symbol on the side of a building or 1-2 people getting beat up doesn't fall in the same category as the San Bernardino or the Orlando shootings.

I understand that people want to be sensitive to other groups, and they don't want to appear as bigots or politically incorrect on the topic of Islam...but as I've said before, to pretend that "other groups are just as bad", or watering down the term "terrorist attack" in order to pad the statistics for other forms of extremism so they can come out with the 20% statistic is intellectually dishonest and, as Sam Harris said, "being deliberately ignorant about the problem"

If you want to know why people are more scared of one than that other, you just need to honestly consider the following numbers (and for the sake of fairness, we'll ignore 9/11 since I understand that grossly skews the numbers):

Fort Hood Shooting: 13 dead, 33 injured
Boston Marathon Bombing: 3 dead, 183 injuries
San Bernardino Attack: 14 dead, 22 injured
Orlando Nightclub Shooting: 49 dead, 53 injured

Now let's compare that to some of the other forms of terrorism discussed above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

KKK - hasn't killed anyone since 1981
Left Wing Extremist groups - haven't killed anyone since 1983
Eco Extremists (like ALF) - property damage
White Nationalist Terrorism - Charleston Church Shooting, Wisconsin Temple shooting...body count of the two events combined: 16 dead, 5 injured -- prior to those two events, that last incident involving physical harm was years ago.
Anti-abortion attacks...most occurences, however, fatalities are rare and 90% of it is property damage.

If you notice, there's one example listed where it highlights what I was talking about before about the watering down of the term "attack".

1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.

So, apparently causing $100 worth of damage is the same as 50+ casualties.

Woah! Long post. I'll try to respond later today.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Because that wouldn't be a valid comparison...that would be taking it too far in the other direction.

"US Based Extremists" is an extremely broad category, while "Islamic Extremism" is narrowing down to a specific ideology and thought process.

...and, there can be significant overlap between those two labels. For example, the San Bernardino incident would qualify as both since the aggressor fit both categories.

Anti-abortion terrorism
Anti-government terrorism
Anti-Semitic terrorism
Anti-Islamic terrorism
Anti-Gay terrorism
Racial Terrorism
Eco-Terrorism
Christian Terrorism

Then you have hate groups like the KKK who are a hate-based organization, but in terms of actual violent acts committed, have been pretty much neutered.

Then you have gangs who, in all reality, should be labeled as terrorist groups (based on kill count alone), but aren't...

etc...

...those are all brands of US-based extremism, and for each of those from 1990 until present day, you'd be hard pressed to find one that, by itself, has the same body count and number of high-profile attacks.

Why are we worried about comparing like things? If the conversation is centered around "Things we need to be concerned about" should that not be a set of things that we feel are viable threats and not a set that we are only comparing to Islamic extremism? And if not then why are we limiting it to "Anti Muslim" Christians? That does not seem an equitable group to the broad range of Muslim extremism.

Even when you do the math on it, Islamic extremism (in terms of body count) is still way over-represented in terms of the numbers.

The NY Times disagrees.

In the 14 years since Al Qaeda carried out attacks on New York and the Pentagon, extremists have regularly executed smaller lethal assaults in the United States, explaining their motives in online manifestoes or social media rants.But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslim

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...llenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html
If you think of it this way. The Muslim population in the US is just over 3 million.
Based on polling data pertaining to certain social attitudes (on women, free speech, separation of church & stay, gays, secularism, etc...), only 9% hold views that would be considered concerning or "extreme". That means 270,000 may have views that could lead to concerning behavior (and in actuality, that number is probably much smaller because even if a person says they'd want to do something, very few would actually have the guts to do it).

That means that a group 270,000 (likely much smaller) is responsible for 20% of all terror attacks.

OK. so how many are responsible for the other 80%? You can't just artificially break this into Muslim/Everyone else. What percentage is carried out by White supremacists and how many are they?

And, in my own personal opinion, that 20% number is actually low-balling due to a watering down of the word "attack".

If it's the same set of FBI stats I looked at about a year back. They lump property damage, vandalism, and minor assault in the same category as mass shootings and other events where there is actual loss of life or injury.

We can honestly look and say "yeah, spray-painting a Swastika on a Jewish temple is an act of hate, and it's an act intimidation"

...however, in terms of what's going to make the public scared/concerned/paranoid, spray-painting a hate symbol on the side of a building or 1-2 people getting beat up doesn't fall in the same category as the San Bernardino or the Orlando shootings.

True, it is not in the same category. But then San Bernadino and the shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation I would say are in the same ballpark.

I understand that people want to be sensitive to other groups, and they don't want to appear as bigots or politically incorrect on the topic of Islam...but as I've said before, to pretend that "other groups are just as bad", or watering down the term "terrorist attack" in order to pad the statistics for other forms of extremism so they can come out with the 20% statistic is intellectually dishonest and, as Sam Harris said, "being deliberately ignorant about the problem"

I understand. What I am saying is that all the evidence I have been able to find from the FBI and numerous other sources is that these other groups really are more of a threat. It is not about sensitivity, I agree that extremist Islam is a threat and something we need to be careful of. But we need to ensure we are looking at these threats in a proportional manner.

If you want to know why people are more scared of one than that other, you just need to honestly consider the following numbers (and for the sake of fairness, we'll ignore 9/11 since I understand that grossly skews the numbers):

Fort Hood Shooting: 13 dead, 33 injured
Boston Marathon Bombing: 3 dead, 183 injuries
San Bernardino Attack: 14 dead, 22 injured
Orlando Nightclub Shooting: 49 dead, 53 injured

Now let's compare that to some of the other forms of terrorism discussed above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

KKK - hasn't killed anyone since 1981
Left Wing Extremist groups - haven't killed anyone since 1983
Eco Extremists (like ALF) - property damage
White Nationalist Terrorism - Charleston Church Shooting, Wisconsin Temple shooting...body count of the two events combined: 16 dead, 5 injured -- prior to those two events, that last incident involving physical harm was years ago.
Anti-abortion attacks...most occurences, however, fatalities are rare and 90% of it is property damage.

If you notice, there's one example listed where it highlights what I was talking about before about the watering down of the term "attack".

1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage.

So, apparently causing $100 worth of damage is the same as 50+ casualties.

I think you might be missing a couple,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park_Jewish_Community_Center_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting

That said I will grant that given the Orlando shooting it looks like the numbers are a lot more even these days.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why are we worried about comparing like things? If the conversation is centered around "Things we need to be concerned about" should that not be a set of things that we feel are viable threats and not a set that we are only comparing to Islamic extremism? And if not then why are we limiting it to "Anti Muslim" Christians? That does not seem an equitable group to the broad range of Muslim extremism.

The reason why it's important to acknowledge similar things when doing comparison is because in much of the national conversation about this topic, 50% of the population acts as if they "just don't understand why people are more afraid of Muslim extremists than other types of extremists" and then use that line of reasoning to accuse others of Islamophobia.

Also, I did list Christian Terrorism on my list of types of home grown terrorism.

The NY Times disagrees.

What the NY Times is doing with that article is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post, which is failing to make a series of distinctions about the attacks...

Such as:
Violent vs. non-violent
Lethal vs. non-lethal

OK. so how many are responsible for the other 80%? You can't just artificially break this into Muslim/Everyone else. What percentage is carried out by White supremacists and how many are they?

Like I said before, the other groups all combined would make up the other 80%. However, if we omit property damage and non-lethal attacks, those numbers drastically change.


The overland Park Jewish center one done by Miller can certainly be categorized as a White Nationalist violence...however to say the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting was home grown would be a point of debate. Isn't that the case where a Pakistani national shot up the place due to anger about the US's middle east policies?



Based on the FBI definition of "terror attack", yes, you're correct in that, statistically speaking, non-Muslim forms of extremism are more frequent. However, with the broad definition they use, it's not really painting an honest picture of the situation at hand.

Let me use this analogy.

Let's say you & I were both seedy elements in a neighborhood. Law enforcement is keeping tabs on our activities and using that to assess a threat level...the townspeople are doing that same thing.

In the past two years, you vandalize 28 different buildings, you've beaten 3 different people up in bar fights, and you've robbed 9 houses.

That's 40 occurrences.

In that same time period, the hypothetical me has shot 4 people...that's 4 occurrences.

The neighborhood is rightfully going to be more afraid of me than you at that point. Even if the law enforcement agency and local professors say "well, actually your fear is unfounded, you're 10x more likely to be attacked by Belk than Rob" that won't matter one bit. People are just naturally more afraid of certain types of attacks than others.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,941
1,034
New York/Int'l
✟14,624.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
When discussing Christian terrorists, it's best to break them down into specific groups with specific motivations. When it comes to Islamic terrorists, we should lump them altogether, whether acting as a lone participant or with a group. Got it! :thumbsup:

No worries, "homegrown terrorist" will be the umbrella buzzword for "terrorists" who are American - especially white Christian males - very soon.

These events will increase in frequency, and the moniker will be introduced as canonical.
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
No worries, "homegrown terrorist" will be the umbrella buzzword for "terrorists" who are American - especially white Christian males - very soon.

These events will increase in frequency, and the moniker will be introduced as canonical.
Be sure to use the word "homegrown" it makes it sound nicer and safer than those dastardly foreigners or nationals from other countries.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tatteredsoul
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
When discussing Christian terrorists, it's best to break them down into specific groups with specific motivations. When it comes to Islamic terrorists, we should lump them altogether, whether acting as a lone participant or with a group. Got it! :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone was suggesting that...Christian terrorist got its own entry on the list I rattled off. ...plus, I plainly stated that many instances of extremism can fall into multiple buckets.

For example, the Orlando shooting could fall into the categories of both Islamic Terrorism and Anti-Gay terrorism.

...but again, this is all just dancing around the point.

The point is, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there's a reason why people are more concerned about (and more publicly critical of) Islamic terrorism than other forms, and that reason is not bigotry or Islamaphobia.

The reasons are (in order):
Magnitude
Lethality
Frequency
Randomness of the attacks

Plain & Simple.

This snarky argument we hear from so many about "oh, so you think it's only terrorism when Muslims do it..." is a deliberately dishonest tactic.

Of course it's still "extremism" when other groups do it...nobody is claiming that it's not.

However, if Group A is producing high profile attacks involving mass casualties, creating a worldwide refugee crisis, and seemingly picking targets at random.

And Group B is largely engaging in property damage with the occasional casualty...

...sorry people are likely going to be more concerned by Group A.

That doesn't mean that they're not accepting the fact that Group B is also bad...it just means they've decided that certain kinds of extremism is more alarming that others.

I dislike rapists more than I dislike shoplifters, that doesn't mean that I don't think shoplifters are also criminals, or that I'm turning a blind eye to what they're doing.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,242
12,995
Seattle
✟895,274.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The reason why it's important to acknowledge similar things when doing comparison is because in much of the national conversation about this topic, 50% of the population acts as if they "just don't understand why people are more afraid of Muslim extremists than other types of extremists" and then use that line of reasoning to accuse others of Islamophobia.

I think I must be missing something. How does comparing like things show us why people are correctly afraid of Islam? It seems to me we would need to be certain to compare these are all the things we should be afraid of (In this context obviously) and then break it down by how large of a threat we face.

Also, I did list Christian Terrorism on my list of types of home grown terrorism.

True but you added the qualifier "Anti Christian" which strikes me as unnecessarily limiting.

What the NY Times is doing with that article is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post, which is failing to make a series of distinctions about the attacks...

Such as:
Violent vs. non-violent
Lethal vs. non-lethal

The NY times article that pointed out 26 deaths from Jihadists compared to 48 from home grown hate groups? Seems completely comparable to me.

Like I said before, the other groups all combined would make up the other 80%. However, if we omit property damage and non-lethal attacks, those numbers drastically change.

OK. How do the numbers drastically change?


The overland Park Jewish center one done by Miller can certainly be categorized as a White Nationalist violence...however to say the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting was home grown would be a point of debate. Isn't that the case where a Pakistani national shot up the place due to anger about the US's middle east policies?

Could be. I admit I did not fully vet my sources. My point is that I think your list is not exhaustive.


Based on the FBI definition of "terror attack", yes, you're correct in that, statistically speaking, non-Muslim forms of extremism are more frequent. However, with the broad definition they use, it's not really painting an honest picture of the situation at hand.

Let me use this analogy.

Let's say you & I were both seedy elements in a neighborhood. Law enforcement is keeping tabs on our activities and using that to assess a threat level...the townspeople are doing that same thing.

In the past two years, you vandalize 28 different buildings, you've beaten 3 different people up in bar fights, and you've robbed 9 houses.

That's 40 occurrences.

In that same time period, the hypothetical me has shot 4 people...that's 4 occurrences.

The neighborhood is rightfully going to be more afraid of me than you at that point. Even if the law enforcement agency and local professors say "well, actually your fear is unfounded, you're 10x more likely to be attacked by Belk than Rob" that won't matter one bit. People are just naturally more afraid of certain types of attacks than others.


I understand your point, I am just not certain your information is correct. I will fully admit that I have not exhaustively researched this and am simply going by what I have read in the popular press. Do you have a source on your claim that the FBI is simply going off a broad definition of "Attack" and it is therefore not seeing the Islamic threat as significantly as it should?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think I must be missing something. How does comparing like things show us why people are correctly afraid of Islam?

Like I noted (and perhaps it's my fault for not being more specific...my apologies if that's the case), it's important to comparing similar things because not all extremism is the same in the eyes of the public.

For example, a bunch of Neo-Nazis spray painting Anti-Jewish hate symbols and rhetoric on a Jewish temple isn't going to have the same psychological impact on the general public as a Dylan Roof or Omar Mateen. So counting them all as the same thing when building the tally of "X number of terror acts committed by group Z" in terms of public perception isn't granular or specific enough to be helpful.

It seems to me we would need to be certain to compare these are all the things we should be afraid of (In this context obviously) here is the breakdown of likelihood.

Likelihood has to be balanced by which types of extremism people are more afraid of.

For example, there are a lot of instances of anti-abortion attacks, but most don't involve any human casualties. People are still fearful of that and have a negative view of that sort of behavior, but not as negative as something like a bomb going off at a marathon injuring ~200 random people.

Or perhaps a better example would be an extremist group that has a high rate of assault. a 1:100,000 risk of getting assaulted doesn't scare people as much as a 1:1,000,000 risk of getting killed.

It's also worth pointing out that large scale attacks scare people more than spread out incidents of smaller attacks.

For example, if a group/person kills 1 person per year for 20 years, that doesn't seem to scare people as much as a group/person that kills 20 people at once. (even though the loss of life is the same).

People just react more harshly to "mass" incidents. ...and it's not just targeted at Muslim extremists...there was quite an outcry and backlash over the Dylan Roof church shooting. Immediately following that event, there was a huge public shift in terms of attitudes toward the confederate flag being flown (that hadn't been there prior).

And of course, we can't ignore the international aspect of this whole thing either. If there's an indirectly affiliated group somewhere else in the world causing mass havoc, that always causes a certain measure of blow back as well (not saying it's warranted or justified, just merely pointing out a fact).

For example, if there was a Catholic extremist group that started operating in Italy and racking up a substantial body count (and using particular Catholic doctrine to support their actions)...to the point where Italians started leaving the country and seeking refuge in other places, you can believe that Catholics all over the world would start to be looked at with more scrutiny and if there was a measure calling for allowing in tens of thousands of Catholics into the US who wanted to flee from Italy, there would be a sizable portion of the population would want to put the brakes on that and say "that seems risky, we might not know which side they're really on"

--again, not saying that's right, but that is the way some people would feel about it.

True but you added the qualifier "Anti Christian" which strikes me as unnecessarily limiting.

I must be missing where I typed that lol

Here was the list I posted (in the post I was referring to)
Anti-abortion terrorism
Anti-government terrorism
Anti-Semitic terrorism
Anti-Islamic terrorism
Anti-Gay terrorism
Racial Terrorism
Eco-Terrorism
Christian Terrorism


The NY times article that pointed out 26 deaths from Jihadists compared to 48 from home grown hate groups? Seems completely comparable to me.

Like I mentioned before, i'm not sure where they got those numbers from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
If you look at the numbers for the United States on here (for 2002-present), it's coming up with a total that's larger than 26, even if we leave out the Orlando shootings...and of course that's just deaths...in terms of injuries, the number is huge (mainly due to the high number of injuries from the Boston bombings)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MrSpikey

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
1,431
740
53
UK
✟34,367.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Rather than speak out against Christian extremists, we see moderates of every ilk not speaking out against members of their society. This perpetuates and encourages future terrorism.

I'm still waiting for the non-creepy clowns to come out with some kind of statement.

That they haven't speaks volumes about clown attitudes everywhere.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums