Bomb Blast in Bangkok

[Colonel]

That's right. I want you to provide a reputable source that proves your previous statement to be factual:



Throwing out some random data from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/, which is clearly an Islamophobic website, that isn't even labelled as being terrorist attacks doesn't qualify.

But thanks for providing yet another excellent example of what you think is an "honest discussion" in this matter.

reputable source. hmm seems to me the State Department's website qualifies. Without going through the entire report which is linked in the first paragraph, the breakdown of locations and the top ten most deadly terrorist organizations seems to qualify his statement as to Islamic terrorism is the highest compared to any other. I don't know if you can say as high as 99% as I havent sifted through all the stats but I would wager its over 70-80% if not 90%.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224831.htm

 

[r16]

and which "cultural group" is deemed to be the biggest threst to the "West" and gets targeted , really or in the imaginations of the "victims" ? Who gets to be singled out repeatedly so that when people rise for their "defence" they find the going easier ? Who actually gets funded to wild amounts of money within full knowledge of the US ?

as for the Unabomber , he is a relic of the times when some 100 000 vets of Vietnam were reportedly roaming the pastural areas of the US ready to descend on the cities , if there was a "need" for them . Rewatch Rambo , First Blood to see what might have happened . Of course , the 100 000 is a too big a number ; but Unabomber could randomly strike you if you talked too much or something ...

 

[poom3619]

I don't know about others. But some Thais said that the bomber is well-trained to the point it is impossible to be trained with anything Thailand can provide. Thailand's politic is relatively very peaceful. Government (junta) is stable for an obvious reason.
Thailand's government have no trouble at all with the like of PR.China and Russia, and as foreigner and even some Thais forget is that we already have ethnic and religious separatist active on Southern Thailand which hardly a conventional war and more like a very long series of bombing and sabotage. Most rifle the "southern bandit" (as it was called in Thailand) used are belongs to Thai army and every bomb is hardly more than homemade.

This bombing surely hurts Thailand's tourism, which is a main income for Thailand and Thailand's "high season" is coming in October, and back to current government, there's a certain power bloc that openly question in legitimacy.

That's make them and me reach to only viable conclusion, this bombing was orchestrated by certain superpower I didn't mention.

 

[Funky]

reputable source. hmm seems to me the State Department's website qualifies. Without going through the entire report which is linked in the first paragraph, the breakdown of locations and the top ten most deadly terrorist organizations seems to qualify his statement as to Islamic terrorism is the highest compared to any other. I don't know if you can say as high as 99% as I havent sifted through all the stats but I would wager its over 70-80% if not 90%.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224831.htm

You can look at any list really. ReligionOfPeace happens to be one of the most reliable and thorough sources, but the results are the same everywhere. When it comes to deaths caused by terror attacks, the percentage of these deaths caused by Muslims is indeed as high as 99%. This is even the case for a site like Wikipedia, which is very conservative and tends to only list the attacks which have been covered by Western media. Anyone who refuses to accept this diagnosis, in 2015, after years and years of Muslim terror around the globe on a daily basis, is either dishonest or utterly deluded.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't know if you can say as high as 99% as I havent sifted through all the stats but I would wager its over 70-80% if not 90%.

Then it simply doesn't matter. Now does it? Neither of you can "prove" this obviously concocted "statistic", and you don't even come close to agreeing with it.

and which "cultural group" is deemed to be the biggest threst to the "West" and gets targeted , really or in the imaginations of the "victims" ? Who gets to be singled out repeatedly so that when people rise for their "defence" they find the going easier ? Who actually gets funded to wild amounts of money within full knowledge of the US ?

Indeed. The rampant Islamophoboic fearmongering perpetuated by so many Westerners is sad and pitiful as they continue to deliberately ignore the real threats against them.

You can look at any list really. ReligionOfPeace happens to be one of the most reliable and thorough sources, but the results are the same everywhere.

Back to that complete and utter nonsense again? Your wacky and clearly Islamophobic website doesn't even qualify because it doesn't even attempt to differentiate so-called "terrorist" attacks from all the rest where any Muslim is killed for any reason by "bad" Muslims.

Not to mention even the "terrorism database" quoted by the State Department is clearly biased against Muslims while failing to even consider many such acts by other religious extremists and others.

 

[Colonel]

Then it simply doesn't matter. Now does it? Neither of you can "prove" this obviously concocted "statistic", and you don't even come close to agreeing with it.

Indeed. The rampant Islamophoboic fearmongering perpetuated by so many Westerners is sad and pitiful as they continue to deliberately ignore the real threats against them.

Back to that complete and utter nonsense again? Your wacky and clearly Islamophobic website doesn't even qualify because it doesn't even attempt to differentiate so-called "terrorist" attacks from all the rest where any Muslim is killed for any reason by "bad" Muslims.

Not to mention even the "terrorism database" quoted by the State Department is clearly biased against Muslims while failing to even consider many such acts by other religious extremists and others.

I didn't say I couldn't prove it. I simply said I have better things to do with my time. I gave you a reputable source that based on what I skimmed over seems fairly closely in line with what he said. Thus the burden of proof is on you. Failing to acknowledge the State Department as a legitimate source pretty much makes your argument have the weight of any of the crazys I see on TV. You will fly in the face of any evidence from any source, or outright ignore a source if it doesn't fit your narrative. The fact of the matter is that Islamic Terrorism is by far the most violent, extremist, clearly idiotic group of terrorists out there. That and the populace of the Middle Eastern country's at bear minimum tolerate their presence and more often then not actively support them.