This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

User Info: Funkdamental

Funkdamental
3 years ago#31
R_Nelly posted...
Funkdamental posted...
R_Nelly posted...

It's pretty safe to say 99% of terrorist are Muslims. Show me the last time white people engaged in a terrorist attack against a civilian instillation? What's it been 3 years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's such a small number that it isn't worth mentioning. What do you have? Maybe 50 incidents in the last 50 years?


Yes. In the last half century, there have been only 50 terrorist incidents caused by Marxist or nationalist terrorist groups throughout the world or even just Europe. Yet funnily enough, they still managed to kill around 3,000 people in my country (the UK) alone. It's almost as if there've actually been thousands of attacks rather than just "50".

As for FARC or narco-terrorists in Colombia? Well, obviously Latin Americans aren't "white", so that doesn't count. Oh, and because the world is apparently split between "Muslims" and "white people", we can't mention terrorist atrocities by anti-balaka militias in the CAR, Renamo in Mozambique, UNITA in Angola, the LRA in Uganda...


Please do go ahead and list them. And again, 3,000 deaths, vs millions by Islamic terrorist. And those attacks by drug-cartels are less terrorist attack and more military operation, that's just how large their organization is. But hey, I have no issue with considering those scum terrorist as well.


If Pablo Escobar's boys setting off car bombs in Bogota is a "military operation", then suicide-bombing markets in Baghdad is also a "military operation". And exactly what is it you want me to list? The names of the dead from republican and loyalist terrorist attacks in NI and the rest of the UK? Every incident? There are entire books that spend hundreds of pages cataloguing such details. And I like the way you're fighting a rearguard action from your position that there've been only 50 non-Muslim terrorist attacks in the last 50 years by suddenly throwing out a vague figure of "millions" of deaths caused by Islamist terrorists. I mean, couldn't you at least give us a rough breakdown, country by country?
blah blah blah

User Info: R_Nelly

R_Nelly
3 years ago#32
Funkdamental posted...
Pablo Escobar


Funkdamental posted...
R_Nelly posted...
Funkdamental posted...
R_Nelly posted...

It's pretty safe to say 99% of terrorist are Muslims. Show me the last time white people engaged in a terrorist attack against a civilian instillation? What's it been 3 years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's such a small number that it isn't worth mentioning. What do you have? Maybe 50 incidents in the last 50 years?


Yes. In the last half century, there have been only 50 terrorist incidents caused by Marxist or nationalist terrorist groups throughout the world or even just Europe. Yet funnily enough, they still managed to kill around 3,000 people in my country (the UK) alone. It's almost as if there've actually been thousands of attacks rather than just "50".

As for FARC or narco-terrorists in Colombia? Well, obviously Latin Americans aren't "white", so that doesn't count. Oh, and because the world is apparently split between "Muslims" and "white people", we can't mention terrorist atrocities by anti-balaka militias in the CAR, Renamo in Mozambique, UNITA in Angola, the LRA in Uganda...


Please do go ahead and list them. And again, 3,000 deaths, vs millions by Islamic terrorist. And those attacks by drug-cartels are less terrorist attack and more military operation, that's just how large their organization is. But hey, I have no issue with considering those scum terrorist as well.


If Pablo Escobar's boys setting off car bombs in Bogota is a "military operation", then suicide-bombing markets in Baghdad is also a "military operation". And exactly what is it you want me to list? The names of the dead from republican and loyalist terrorist attacks in NI and the rest of the UK? Every incident? There are entire books that spend hundreds of pages cataloguing such details. And I like the way you're fighting a rearguard action from your position that there've been only 50 non-Muslim terrorist attacks in the last 50 years by suddenly throwing out a vague figure of "millions" of deaths caused by Islamist terrorists. I mean, couldn't you at least give us a rough breakdown, country by country?


When was Escobar last relevant? The late 80's? I've yet to see anybody actually address how horrible Muslim terrorist are when compared to other groups. The only exception I see would be cartel terrorist, and even then I'm highly suspicious of saying they've killed as many people as Muslim terrorist. I find it disturbing how in depth you people go into trying to defend Muslim terrorist by downplaying how bad and widespread their plague is.

User Info: mysticvortex13

mysticvortex13
3 years ago#33
Again, there have been more than enough lone wolf terrorists over the years to render the groups moot..

User Info: Funkdamental

Funkdamental
3 years ago#34
R_Nelly posted...
When was Escobar last relevant? The late 80's? I've yet to see anybody actually address how horrible Muslim terrorist are when compared to other groups. The only exception I see would be cartel terrorist, and even then I'm highly suspicious of saying they've killed as many people as Muslim terrorist. I find it disturbing how in depth you people go into trying to defend Muslim terrorist by downplaying how bad and widespread their plague is.


I'm not downplaying Islamist terrorism. (Although admit it, your figure of "millions" of victims was just grabbed out of the air.) My main beef is with you horribly underestimating the amount of non-Islamist terrorism in the last half century by thinking there've probably been only about "50" such incidents: a guesstimate whose ignorance is an insult.
blah blah blah

User Info: Funkdamental

Funkdamental
3 years ago#35
Something else I'd point out: the people who are most acutely aware of the dangers and horrors of Islamist terrorist violence are Muslims, who have been (and continue to be) its principal victims.
blah blah blah

User Info: R_Nelly

R_Nelly
3 years ago#36
Funkdamental posted...
R_Nelly posted...
When was Escobar last relevant? The late 80's? I've yet to see anybody actually address how horrible Muslim terrorist are when compared to other groups. The only exception I see would be cartel terrorist, and even then I'm highly suspicious of saying they've killed as many people as Muslim terrorist. I find it disturbing how in depth you people go into trying to defend Muslim terrorist by downplaying how bad and widespread their plague is.


I'm not downplaying Islamist terrorism. (Although admit it, your figure of "millions" of victims was just grabbed out of the air.) My main beef is with you horribly underestimating the amount of non-Islamist terrorism in the last half century by thinking there've probably been only about "50" such incidents: a guesstimate whose ignorance is an insult.


When the normal stories of Muslim terrorist consist of killing anywhere between dozens and thousands of people, it doesn't take long for that to add up. Suicide bombings usually kill almost 2 dozen people and those happen weekly, if not daily. Not every story is probably reported on. I've also still yet to actually see anybody provide evidence of major terrorist activity by non Islamic terrorist in recent memory. The only instance I can think of is McVeigh.
#37
(message deleted)

User Info: Funkdamental

Funkdamental
3 years ago#38
R_Nelly posted...
When the normal stories of Muslim terrorist consist of killing anywhere between dozens and thousands of people, it doesn't take long for that to add up. Suicide bombings usually kill almost 2 dozen people and those happen weekly, if not daily. Not every story is probably reported on. I've also still yet to actually see anybody provide evidence of major terrorist activity by non Islamic terrorist in recent memory. The only instance I can think of is McVeigh.


The most recent figure I've seen is 5,042 across 14 countries for the month of November, 2014 (a daily average of 168, or seven per hour) in an analysis on the BBC News website. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-30080914.

Even if this rate has remained constant over the last two decades, it would still have taken more than 16 years to reach one million deaths (never mind "millions"). In other words, the violence would have to have been sustained at the same or higher level since 1999 -- years before 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose you could include the few tens of thousands of killings by the AIS and the GIA during the Algerian Civil War between 1991-2002 (Algeria and Turkey were fighting Islamist terrorists long before 9/11), but how far back do you want to go?

There's a link in there to a PDF that explains the methodology behind the data-gathering. Although not every story is probably reported on, we're not at liberty to just guess at numbers.
blah blah blah

User Info: Funkdamental

Funkdamental
3 years ago#39
R_Nelly posted...
I've also still yet to actually see anybody provide evidence of major terrorist activity by non Islamic terrorist in recent memory. The only instance I can think of is McVeigh.


Anders Breivik? Or is 76 victims in four hours not "major"?
blah blah blah

User Info: GeneralFrings

GeneralFrings
3 years ago#40
atmasabr posted...
You might say that the right believes President Obama is failing to send a symbolic message to our enemies in the presence of our allies that we're onto you and we are going to confront you. On reflection, I think your question about "adding to the discussion" misses the point. This controversy, in the political right's point of view is not about how to talk about how to talk about Islamic terrorism. It is how to act in response to it. The political right believes that acting with strength and resolve are necessary. That means calling things as they are in order to hold people accountable. This is where you get all those unfavorable comparisons to Neville Chamberlain.


This entire statement is contradictory. You say the argument isn't about semantics and then turn around and argue that the semantics are important in order to project power.

Furthermore, we've done a whole hell of a lot to combat these maniacs. Mostly at the presidents orders. Every time he comes on air after an attack he strongly condemns them and threatens action that is then taken. It is almost childish to say that the terrorists and our allies are somehow thinking, "Well, he's not referring specifically to the Islamic terrorists so he might be referring to the Antarctic terrorists for all we know..."
How deep is too deep?
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived