None Dare Call it Christian Terrorism

[Formaldehyde]

Oh yeah. 2003 was soo long ago. In fact it was 2 years after the incident you and so many others continue to use as an excuse to engage in incessant Islamophobic hatemongering.

I've heard lots of silly excuses to ignore basic facts before. But that one has to be near the top of the list.

How old are you, anyway?

 

[Farm Boy]

Because we're dealing with the level upon which the KKK is still a policy effective and impactful organization. Because it stands in for all the white on black racism ingrained in this country which is almost entirely unaffiliated with it. Because we have a new tumbler crusade of the hour for the simpleminded against a symbol of myriad meaning particularly amongst an economically underpowered social minority. But I'm sure it's all very clear, depending on which perch you use to observe, and but for correct reading of the right verses we'd all see the truth. The facts. The ones you are entitled to being told about.

 

[Formaldehyde]

More "homespun logic" and silly strawmen by another forum participant who is quite well known for simply ignoring the facts that disagree with his preconceived notions? Speaking of "simpleminded" perceptions.

But you both do apparently have two things in common. You continue to try to rationalize and defend the use of the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of your own "beliefs" and others. And you are both seemingly Protestants.

 

[Samson]

I use these things called "facts" instead of "statistics" perpetuated by Islamophibic fearmongering. I suggest you try doing the same.

Let us give it a try, with actual facts:

This famous study has been posted numerous times already.

Without source data I find that hard to count as facts. Is there not peer reviewed jornals for this sort of thing? I have tried to look through the link to find actual examples of cases they put into one group or the other, and cannot. However there is this point:

The occupation of Pakistan’s western tribal regions by local combat forces allied to American military forces stationed across the border in Afghanistan accounts for another 12%

This ilustrates the problem. This conflict is at heart an ethnic one, Pashtun against Punjabi. However the agenda has been set by the Pashtun insergents as "real" wahhabi islam against the "muslims in name only" in Islamabad. Does this make it a religious conflict or an ethnic one? I do not know, but it seems a very strong point to make this not religiously motivated where the example in the OP is.

From 1980 to 2003

I would suggest the world has changed since 2003. The Arab spring, the unrest following the invasion of iraq, and the intensified conflict in sub-saharan africa have caused increases in terrorist actions in these areas, and many of them include strong religeous themes in there message. I would suggest looking at the list I gave above to sanity check your figures. Are you willing to say that only 1 in 20 on that list are religiously motivated? It does not look that way to me, Boko Haram are in it quite a bit, and they seem religiously motivated to me.

[EDIT] Also, without the source data to check it is hard, but the Rowandan civil war could have been counted as many seperate terrorist actions, and we have not had a repeat of that as a pretty much "pure" secular conflict.

what over 95% of all suicide terrorist attacks before 2004 had in common was a strategic goal: to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces that are threatening territory that the terrorists’ prize

This is not the same as 95% do not have religious motivation. I think this could very well be true, most organised acts of violence are really to apply preasure on a state, and terrorism works better against democratic states than despotisms (though I suspect there have been more non-democratic states targeted recently than 1980 to 2003). However if an organisation says "lets smash state X because they are sunni / shia / hindu" then they probably have religious motivation. If they say "lets smash state X because they are disciminating against us" then they may well not have religious motivation. Both these groups would fall into the 95% figure given above.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Without source data I find that hard to count as facts.

Why don't you try just reading what I posted. The URL to the raw data is there. But as they said:

For this finding to be wrong, our research team would have had to miss hundreds of suicide attacks during this period,

Good luck with that.

Is there not peer reviewed jornals for this sort of thing?

Do you think this is science instead of history and political science?

These are both eminent scholars in their respective fields and well known in academia. The University of Chicago Press isn't an Islamophobic website. They have credibility in spades and their findings are frequently cited in the media and even in this forum. They have been mentioned at least 3 or 4 times already regarding these incessant threads about the same Islamophobic nonsense.

I would suggest the world has changed since 2003.

I would again suggest you merely read the article before trying to debunk it because they clearly make exactly the same point. That suicidal terrorist attacks have grown immensely since 2004 and continue to have extremely little whatsoever with religion, as in the past.

Trying to change the data so that it doesn't go all the way back to 1980 isn't helping your point at all. Not that your point has any real credibility in the first place. Terrorism didn't magically change 2 years after 9/11.

 

[brennan]

You can't help but play the man instead of the ball can you?

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide TerrorismisRobert Pape's analysis ofsuicide terrorismfrom a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at theUniversity of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism. The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism attacks around the world from 1980 through 2003.

Note: 315 suicide attacks worldwide in 23 years.

Contrast:

An analysis byIraq Body Countand co-authors published in 2011 concluded that at least 12,284 civilians were killed in at least 1,003 suicide bombings in Iraq between 2003 and 2010.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Iraq_War

Yes 2003 is a long time ago. The modern phenomenon of the suicide bomber eclipses the period of the study you cite by an order of magniture.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You can't help but play the man instead of the ball can you?

It's what he started this thread for, apparently.

 

[Farm Boy]

More "homespun logic" and silly strawmen by another forum participant who is quite well known for simply ignoring the facts that disagree with his preconceived notions? Speaking of "simpleminded" perceptions.

I am pretty dippy enough of the time. That is true enough. But you've done with "logic" in the sentence above what you tend to do with "facts." It's not a pretty thing man!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Coming from you I take it as a compliment of the highest order.

You have yet to make a post that really has anything to do with the actual topic of this thread except in the form of patently silly strawmen.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Coming from you I take it as a compliment of the highest order.

You have yet to make a post that really has anything to do with the actual topic of this thread except in the form of patently silly strawmen.

Well, given the way the thread title failed to connect with the opening post that's not terribly surprising. Patently silly has been present from the inception of the thread.

 

[Samson]

Why don't you try just reading what I posted. The URL to the raw data is there. But as they said:

Quick note, I have to go for a bit, but the link I saw was "readers can judge for themselves by reviewing the database of suicide attacks available online at cpost.uchicago.edu." which is a link to the home page, rather than detailing what list to check for "what is a religious attack".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, given the way the thread title failed to connect with the opening post that's not terribly surprising. Patently silly has been present from the inception of the thread.

"Patently silly" is a highly apt description of all the obvious attempts to derail this thread with nonsensical personal attacks and absurdly wacky strawmen as you and a handful of others continue to do.

It really makes you wonder why this topic is such an "offensive" sacred cow to someone who admits he hangs out with white supremacists. Someone who was found to be disseminating unadulterated nonsense about the KKK in defiance of the obvious facts.

Quick note, I have to go for a bit, but the link I saw was "readers can judge for themselves by reviewing the database of suicide attacks available online at cpost.uchicago.edu." which is a link to the home page, rather than detailing what list to check for "what is a religious attack".

You have to follow the links.

But I think you are going to continue to suffer from the same problem no matter what evidence is presented to you. It is the same glaringly obvious misconception found on every single Islamophobic website. That terrorist attacks by Muslims must be motivated by religion, regardless of what actually caused them to make the attack.

Ironically, it is what many of those who continue to try to derail this thread absurdly claim is my "motivation' towards Christianity by even starting this thread. There is an obvious double standard at play here.

Warning: adult language.


Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Patently silly" is a highly apt description of all the obvious attempts to derail this thread with nonsensical personal attacks and absurdly wacky strawmen as you and a handful of others continue to do.

It really makes you wonder why this topic is such an "offensive" sacred cow to someone who admits he hangs out with white supremacists. Someone who was found to be disseminating unadulterated nonsense about the KKK in defiance of the obvious facts.

As has already been mentioned, there is no such "admission." While the truth is usually far from your posts, such blatant lying is, I thought, beneath even you.

Meanwhile, which "rails" are you concerned about this thread being knocked off of? It had it's initial click bait run from the misleading title. Then it turned into one of your "Formy provides a newsfeed on something" threads to keep it near the top until the clickbait title got some new players. Is that not what your intentions for it were?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Those supposed "lies" are all documented quite clearly here in this thread in the form of posts by you, as others besides myself continue to point out. Yet you continue to try to derail this thread with all these incessant nonsensical strawmen after being repeatedly shown to be clearly ignoring the basic facts.

There goes your "credibility" even more...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those supposed "lies" are all documented quite clearly here in this thread in the form of posts by you, as you continue to try to derail this thread with all these incessant nonsensical strawmen.

And there goes your "credibility" even more...

Please link the post where I "admit I hang out with white supremacists." Not that anyone who thinks your claim might be credible can't look for themselves, but just in case there actually is such a person (doubtful) and they don't feel like looking for themselves.

Else, stop telling bald faced lies of a slanderous nature.

 

[brennan]

"Patently silly" is a highly apt description of all the obvious attempts to derail this thread with nonsensical personal attacks and absurdly wacky strawmen as you and a handful of others continue to do.

It really makes you wonder why this topic is such an "offensive" sacred cow to someone who admits he hangs out with white supremacists. Someone who was found to be disseminating unadulterated nonsense about the KKK in defiance of the obvious facts.

"Don't attack me."... launches personal attack with flagrant lies.

You are currently our champion hypocrite. Have a smiley, we all know you love them so much:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Don't attack me."... launches personal attack with flagrant lies.

You are currently our champion hypocrite. Have a smiley, we all know you love them so much:

I have concluded based on his gratuitous ind inappropriate uses of them that there are some smileys he draws royalties on.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Please link the post where I "admit I hang out with white supremacists." Not that anyone who thinks your claim might be credible can't look for themselves, but just in case there actually is such a person (doubtful) and they don't feel like looking for themselves.

It was part of your blatantly nonsensical argument that white supremacists can't possibly use Christianity as a motivation because you personally know so much about so many of them.

Calling white supremacists "Christian terrorists" demonstrates that you have no familiarity with Christians or with white supremacists. Better find some videos on the internet and become the world's greatest authority on the subjects, or maybe get out of the basement and get some first hand knowledge..

I think al-Qaeda does generally claim some sort of religious connection. That doesn't make their claim true, or make it reasonable to hold their terrorism against all of Islam, but it does make the term "Islamic terrorist" at least make some sort of sense. I've met plenty of white supremacists and I never heard one of them claim anything about Christianity as motivation or justification.

If you want to go for Christian terrorism there's no question that it can be found, but this wasn't it.

If I were you I would be too embarrassed to even continue to bring this up given that you were shown to be completely wrong about the direct connections between many white supremacists and Christianity.

So, again, where exactly did you "meet" all these white supremacists to form the obviously ludicrous opinion?

Else, stop telling bald faced lies of a slanderous nature.

Only I'm obviously doing nothing of the sort while you continue to incessantly do so. Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" even means?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only I'm obviously doing nothing of the sort while you continue to incessantly do so. Do you know what the word "hypcrisy" even means?

Apparently to you it means conflating "met" and "hangs out with" as if they were the same thing, and then procedeing to slander someone who points out the absurdity of your ridiculous claims.

Now, about the bald faced and slanderous lies...care to edit them out?

Last chance.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's all documented above. Should I repeat it all so you can actually read it this time?

Again, how could you possibly claim to know so much about such detailed personal opinions of so many white supremacists? Do you run an outlaw biker gang where they must make a pledge to not use Christianity as a motivation to hate others?