I was asking for specific data regarding terrorism. In numerical terms, has it changed since Europe began accepting Syrian refugees? In numerical terms, how much?
Terrorism is not just some vague thing floating around that we can't quantify. Terrorism has a death count.
"There is no eternal or universal position, especially politically, as things work only due to circumstance."
This. Only human needs are eternal and universal and politics are merely a means toward those ends, political ideology should never be an end in itself. Good insight.
"There is no eternal or universal position, especially politically, as things work only due to circumstance."
This. Only human needs are eternal and universal and politics are merely a means toward those ends, political ideology should never be an end in itself. Good insight.
"There is no eternal or universal position, especially politically, as things work only due to circumstance."
This. Only human needs are eternal and universal and politics are merely a means toward those ends, political ideology should never be an end in itself. Good insight.
Interesting. My views are a weird blend of fiscal conservatism, libertarian and realism. For instance, I don't care what people do with their lives as long as it doesn't interfere with how others live their lives. I also believe that too strong of a central government stifles individualism. For instance, trying to foster an education for everybody using the current system tends to overvalue certain skills and ignore others. Not everybody has to be an Einstein in math or science for example. Trying to force that on people with no desire or aptitude for it while also telling them there's no future for them without those skills ignores reality. I believe that not everybody has the potential to be good at everything and I wish there was more emphasis on finding out what each student is good at and focus them on those skills. That is just too complex for the Feds or even the States to accomplish. I'm not even sure how it could be done to be honest but maybe smarter people than me could figure it out. The realist part of my view is that I believe a strong military is a necessity for preserving freedom. How large the military needs to be is also a question I don't have the answer for. Big enough to be a deterrent for sure, but the question is do we need to have a large enough military to intervene in other conflicts when necessary. That's a tough question. That issue is where I disagree with most libertarians.
The developed world became more dangerous in 2015 with a massive increase in deaths from terrorism, although globally there was a slight fall, according to new figures released Wednesday.
There was a 650% increase in fatal terror attacks on people living in the world's biggest economies in 2015, the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) 2016 reveals.
In 2015, there were 731 deaths related to terrorism in the 34 countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes the US, UK, Germany, France, and Turkey. The number represents the 650% increase on the previous year, with 21 of the 34 countries suffering at least one attack, the report says. Most of the victims were killed in Turkey and France.
Five countries -- Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan -- experienced the worst attacks, accounting for 72% of all deaths from terrorism in 2015. Syria saw a 50% rise in terrorism from 2014 to 2015. Military success against ISIS and Boko Haram resulted in fewer deaths in Iraq and Nigeria but the two groups spread to neighboring states and regions, according to the GTI report. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/16/world/global-terrorism-report/
Massive rise in Europe (or the developed western world), of course Syria is massive rise.
Iraq and Nigeria fell, although honestly what kind of accurate statistics can we expect anywhere let alone the war-torn Middle-east.
We can expect statistics on terrorism in the developed world to be accurate. Terrorist attacks aren't exactly private or secret--and terrorist organizations have a habit of publicly taking credit for their crimes, so attribution shouldn't be that difficult, either.
Refugees going into Europe also increased in 2015 to 1.3 million, more than double the numbers of the previous year. With 731 deaths by terrorists in Europe in 2015, that's 1,780 refugees for every person killed by a terrorist.
There's a correlation, at least for 2015. The next question is how many of those 731 deaths were caused by refugees.
We can expect statistics on terrorism in the developed world to be accurate. Terrorist attacks aren't exactly private or secret--and terrorist organizations have a habit of publicly taking credit for their crimes, so attribution shouldn't be that difficult, either.
Sure for large-scale terrorist attacks and ones with Terrorist organization backing, but there may be small-scale home-grown 'lone-wolf' type terrorist attacks and it's harder to define whether this is a terrorist attack or hate-crime, or both.
However it seems evident that an importation large-scale of migrants and refugee's from countries that are war-torn, from cultures that have 'terrorism' as a common phenomenon, and also the West and American interference in said countries that realistically many of these migrants might hold a hatred of even their host country for, you know, bombing their own country to the ground.
I'm not surprised if terrorist attacks rose in tandem.
Not to be a insensitive to that number but: 35,092 died from motor vehicle accidents in the US in 2015. 957 people people were killed by police last year. Every day, 93 people die from gun violence in the USA (34K/yr). Every day, 216 people are shot and survive.
Terrorism's influence just might be outsized as being the most pressing problem facing us.
I think it's the pure cold-bloodedness of terrorism that sets it apart from the other things you mentioned. There's something especially frightening about the pre-meditated, calculating and targeted nature of terrorist attacks.
Auto accidents are rather random and firearm deaths aren't something most Americans outside the inner cities need fear much.
The ones that are the most worrying are the ones like in Nice. Over 400 people wounded and 80 dead by one guy in one incident. Takes ZERO premeditation or skill and no law can prevent it. How can you ban trucks?
Comparing terrorism to motor vehicle accidents etc is probably not quite going to work out since Terrorism can cause countries to wipe out other countries.
But road rage rarely, i hope, leads to one country utilizing their entire military to wipe out another country.
The ones that are the most worrying are the ones like in Nice. Over 400 people wounded and 80 dead by one guy in one incident. Takes ZERO premeditation or skill and no law can prevent it. How can you ban trucks?
I'd guess it was premeditated however. I hope we haven't gotten to the point where random truck drivers spontaneously think, "Wow, I suddenly feel like driving my rig into that crowd!".
realistically many of these migrants might hold a hatred of even their host country for, you know, bombing their own country to the ground.
This wouldn't hold in the case of Syria. Most of the violence was between Syrians and other Syrians; foreign countries were not doing most of the fighting (though they were involved). Europe had zero role in Syria--there's no reason at all for Syrians to resent European host countries.
I don't know how Syrians feel about the U.S. or Russia or the Muslim countries that picked sides in the Syrian civil war, but if my home was destroyed and I had to flee my homeland, I probably wouldn't seek refuge in the country that was responsible for making me a refugee.
But the key word is "might." We can make predictions about the future, or we can look at the existing track record. The Syrian civil war began six years ago.
Any potential threats have had plenty of time to materialize.
indeed. terrorism is about causing terror and it sounds like people are afraid. But there are things that should also be worrisome. 450 American lives are lost yearly by falling out of bed. 1600 annual fatalities are due to staircases. Terrorism is brutal? Ok well is it better to fall down stairs?
indeed. terrorism is about causing terror and it sounds like people are afraid. But there are things that should also be worrisome. 450 American lives are lost yearly by falling out of bed. 1600 annual fatalities are due to staircases. Terrorism is brutal? Ok well is it better to fall down stairs?
Well to be fair there isn't much a government can do to prevent people from falling out of bed or stumbling on a staircase. I think people feel differently about the government acting on terrorism.
I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Logically, we couldn't answer which was worse unless we interviewed someone who had both been killed by a terrorist and also died by falling down the stairs.
I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Logically, we couldn't answer which was worse unless we interviewed someone who had both been killed by a terrorist and also died by falling down the stairs.
Being killed in a terrorist attack might be quicker maybe...
I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Logically, we couldn't answer which was worse unless we interviewed someone who had both been killed by a terrorist and also died by falling down the stairs.
Let's not jump to any conclusions, don't fall for the argument that terrorism is worse than stairs, that could trip things up.
My problem is with how the word "terrorism" is defined. Because it's morphed into nothing but shorthand for "any violent crime committed by a Muslim". The ACTUAL definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. By this definition, a group of overzealous Catholics blocking access to a legal abortion clinic and yelling at women going inside is absolutely terrorism. The Bundy Boys were without question engaged in terrorism. But the word doesn't have this meaning anymore. It simply means "Muslims with bombs or guns". And that is wildly, wholly inaccurate.
Are Muslims with bombs and guns 'not' terrorists? Adding a few more classifications to who are terrorists doesn't mean that the Muslims with bombs and guns aren't terrorists. I really don't see your point here.
Are Muslims with bombs and guns 'not' terrorists? Adding a few more classifications to who are terrorists doesn't mean that the Muslims with bombs and guns aren't terrorists. I really don't see your point here.
The point is terrorism - the word - is ignored if it doesn't happen by a Muslim. If it happens from any other religion it's not called terrorism. So yeah Donald Trump's right terrorism is being under reported by the news but not for the reasons he gives but because it's by people other than Muslims such as the examples above.
Are Muslims with bombs and guns 'not' terrorists? Adding a few more classifications to who are terrorists doesn't mean that the Muslims with bombs and guns aren't terrorists. I really don't see your point here.
Because it's become strictly reserved for those cases. And right-wing domestic terrorism is inevitably labeled in the press as a "lone wolf" who went off the reservation. A perpetrator like the Colorado Planned Parenthood bomber is rarely ever even referred to as a "terrorist", but much more importantly, Christians are never asked to "denounce" the radical acts of fundamentalists that share their religion. This is demanded of Muslims any time any Muslim anywhere commits a crime.
As I've mentioned before, the Bundy Boys basically committed open sedition on national television for over a month. They used arms to take over Federal land that was the property of the citizens of the United States and threatened to kill law enforcement officers in both Oregon and Nevada (where they actually took up sniper positions against Federal agents). How often (outside liberals on the internet) were these yahoos ever referred to as terrorists?? Despite every one of these guys being a Christian, it was never blamed on their religion. Major Christian groups were not called upon to issue press releases denouncing their actions. Ever major Muslim advocacy group in the country does this after every single incident of violent crimes involving Muslims that takes place in this country, yet every time they are called to do so again as if they have never done so previously. Where was the call from leaders in the government and the media for white Southerners to denounce Dylan Roof after he shot up a black church?? Didn't happen. Of course it didn't happen.
The narrative in the United States is simple: If a Christian commits a crime, no one would ever think to blame ALL Christians for that act, CERTAINLY not politicians or the media. EVERY time a Muslim commits a similar crime, ALL Muslims are expected to denounce it to somehow prove their loyalty to this country, and every time they are asked to do so it paints them with a broad brush of being responsible by religious association.
And the broader point is this: when NO acts of terrorism committed by white Christians are widely referred to as such, and when all acts by Muslims are, the entire meaning of the word is lost and it becomes nothing but a tool that is ONLY used to describe violent crimes committed by a certain group of people. We might as well retire the word at this point, because it's meaningless how it is used in it's current form.
The narrative in the United States is simple: If a Christian commits a crime, no one would ever think to blame ALL Christians for that act, CERTAINLY not politicians or the media. EVERY time a Muslim commits a similar crime, ALL Muslims are expected to denounce it to somehow prove their loyalty to this country, and every time they are asked to do so it paints them with a broad brush of being responsible by religious association.
Generalization's don't really portray reality which is far more complicated.
Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-gay rhetoric in their religion or community? No. Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-insert-religion in their religion or community? No. Do Muslims face much backlash for the crime of apostasy in their religion and community? No. Do Muslims face anything in europe over Female Gentical Mutilation ? No.
Many easy counter-examples which don't quite fit a one-sided world-view.
Muslims face an additional problem because their religion for a very long time has strong under-currents of violent militarism and the last 5 years has been an incredible surge of large terrorist attacks.
However if you think Christians treat Christians well all the time, Then lol you must have never lived in the UK back when the IRA was considered THE Terrorist Group and Protestants and Catholics were at each others throats.
The narrative in the United States is simple: If a Christian commits a crime, no one would ever think to blame ALL Christians for that act, CERTAINLY not politicians or the media. EVERY time a Muslim commits a similar crime, ALL Muslims are expected to denounce it to somehow prove their loyalty to this country, and every time they are asked to do so it paints them with a broad brush of being responsible by religious association.
Generalization's don't really portray reality which is far more complicated.
Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-gay rhetoric in their religion or community? No. Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-insert-religion in their religion or community? No. Do Muslims face much backlash for the crime of apostasy in their religion and community? No. Do Muslims face anything in europe over Female Gentical Mutilation ? No.
Many easy counter-examples which don't quite fit a one-sided world-view.
Muslims face an additional problem because their religion for a very long time has strong under-currents of violent militarism and the last 5 years has been an incredible surge of large terrorist attacks.
However if you think Christians treat Christians well all the time, Then lol you must have never lived in the UK back when the IRA was considered THE Terrorist Group and Protestants and Catholics were at each others throats.
This wasn't long ago either.
Then it's a good thing I'm talking about this as the situation in the United States and not the UK, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Is there a rampant wave of genital mutilation going on in the US that I'm unaware of?? Was I hallucinating recently when I saw Muslims coming out to help clean up the messes left at vandalized Jewish cemeteries. It's blatantly obvious from my post I was talking about strictly the United States.
Then it's a good thing I'm talking about this as the situation in the United States and not the UK, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Is there a rampant wave of genital mutilation going on in the US that I'm unaware of?? Was I hallucinating recently when I saw Muslims coming out to help clean up the messes left at vandalized Jewish cemeteries. It's blatantly obvious from my post I was talking about strictly the United States.
Its surprising your so against generalizations of Muslims, but you know, explicitly support half of Trump supporters being monsters.
Female circumcision is mentioned in the Sahih hadith of the religion (ie the secondary corpus of text that Muslims rely on after the Quran for the teachings of Muhammad), in other words it has doctrinal support, in the history of Islam the schools of jurisprudence have written variously on it being permissible to enforced.
The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them. https://islamqa.info/en/82859
Even such a well known public facing Islamic site doesn't try to hide this fact, so its acceptance still occur's quite frequently.
Attempts to modernize the religion and ban it, haven't been met with consisency.
I am very well acquinted with Islam, Years of having read the Quran, Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, Tafsirs of Ibn Kathir and Al-jalalyn, Al-Tabari and a host of other secondary material from western and eastern scholars.
@vanatos So one remote village in Russia is now Europe. WTF. Besides you said face nothing but your source says there is furore over this. In other words, you were being Trumpist
@vanatos So one remote village in Russia is now Europe. WTF. Besides you said face nothing but your source says there is furore over this. In other words, you were being Trumpist
Female Genital Mutilation in the texts of Islam supporting it occurred before Donald Trump, and the issue is external to him.
How everything is somehow Donald Trump is beyond me.
Comments
Terrorism is not just some vague thing floating around that we can't quantify. Terrorism has a death count.
The developed world became more dangerous in 2015 with a massive increase in deaths from terrorism, although globally there was a slight fall, according to new figures released Wednesday.
There was a 650% increase in fatal terror attacks on people living in the world's biggest economies in 2015, the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) 2016 reveals.
In 2015, there were 731 deaths related to terrorism in the 34 countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes the US, UK, Germany, France, and Turkey.
The number represents the 650% increase on the previous year, with 21 of the 34 countries suffering at least one attack, the report says. Most of the victims were killed in Turkey and France.
Five countries -- Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan -- experienced the worst attacks, accounting for 72% of all deaths from terrorism in 2015.
Syria saw a 50% rise in terrorism from 2014 to 2015.
Military success against ISIS and Boko Haram resulted in fewer deaths in Iraq and Nigeria but the two groups spread to neighboring states and regions, according to the GTI report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/16/world/global-terrorism-report/
Massive rise in Europe (or the developed western world), of course Syria is massive rise.
Iraq and Nigeria fell, although honestly what kind of accurate statistics can we expect anywhere let alone the war-torn Middle-east.
Refugees going into Europe also increased in 2015 to 1.3 million, more than double the numbers of the previous year. With 731 deaths by terrorists in Europe in 2015, that's 1,780 refugees for every person killed by a terrorist.
There's a correlation, at least for 2015. The next question is how many of those 731 deaths were caused by refugees.
However it seems evident that an importation large-scale of migrants and refugee's from countries that are war-torn, from cultures that have 'terrorism' as a common phenomenon, and also the West and American interference in said countries that realistically many of these migrants might hold a hatred of even their host country for, you know, bombing their own country to the ground.
I'm not surprised if terrorist attacks rose in tandem.
Not to be a insensitive to that number but:
35,092 died from motor vehicle accidents in the US in 2015. 957 people people were killed by police last year. Every day, 93 people die from gun violence in the USA (34K/yr). Every day, 216 people are shot and survive.
Terrorism's influence just might be outsized as being the most pressing problem facing us.
Auto accidents are rather random and firearm deaths aren't something most Americans outside the inner cities need fear much.
But road rage rarely, i hope, leads to one country utilizing their entire military to wipe out another country.
I don't know how Syrians feel about the U.S. or Russia or the Muslim countries that picked sides in the Syrian civil war, but if my home was destroyed and I had to flee my homeland, I probably wouldn't seek refuge in the country that was responsible for making me a refugee.
But the key word is "might." We can make predictions about the future, or we can look at the existing track record. The Syrian civil war began six years ago.
Any potential threats have had plenty of time to materialize.
As I've mentioned before, the Bundy Boys basically committed open sedition on national television for over a month. They used arms to take over Federal land that was the property of the citizens of the United States and threatened to kill law enforcement officers in both Oregon and Nevada (where they actually took up sniper positions against Federal agents). How often (outside liberals on the internet) were these yahoos ever referred to as terrorists?? Despite every one of these guys being a Christian, it was never blamed on their religion. Major Christian groups were not called upon to issue press releases denouncing their actions. Ever major Muslim advocacy group in the country does this after every single incident of violent crimes involving Muslims that takes place in this country, yet every time they are called to do so again as if they have never done so previously. Where was the call from leaders in the government and the media for white Southerners to denounce Dylan Roof after he shot up a black church?? Didn't happen. Of course it didn't happen.
The narrative in the United States is simple: If a Christian commits a crime, no one would ever think to blame ALL Christians for that act, CERTAINLY not politicians or the media. EVERY time a Muslim commits a similar crime, ALL Muslims are expected to denounce it to somehow prove their loyalty to this country, and every time they are asked to do so it paints them with a broad brush of being responsible by religious association.
And the broader point is this: when NO acts of terrorism committed by white Christians are widely referred to as such, and when all acts by Muslims are, the entire meaning of the word is lost and it becomes nothing but a tool that is ONLY used to describe violent crimes committed by a certain group of people. We might as well retire the word at this point, because it's meaningless how it is used in it's current form.
Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-gay rhetoric in their religion or community? No.
Do Muslims face the same backlash for anti-insert-religion in their religion or community? No.
Do Muslims face much backlash for the crime of apostasy in their religion and community? No.
Do Muslims face anything in europe over Female Gentical Mutilation ? No.
Many easy counter-examples which don't quite fit a one-sided world-view.
Muslims face an additional problem because their religion for a very long time has strong under-currents of violent militarism and the last 5 years has been an incredible surge of large terrorist attacks.
However if you think Christians treat Christians well all the time, Then lol you must have never lived in the UK back when the IRA was considered THE Terrorist Group and Protestants and Catholics were at each others throats.
This wasn't long ago either.
Doesn't seem consistent. It is not a generalized 'All Muslims are allowed' but that it does occur in Muslim communities, particularly Muslim African communities.
Russia furore over FGM in mainly Muslim Dagestan
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37115746
Female circumcision is mentioned in the Sahih hadith of the religion (ie the secondary corpus of text that Muslims rely on after the Quran for the teachings of Muhammad), in other words it has doctrinal support, in the history of Islam the schools of jurisprudence have written variously on it being permissible to enforced.
The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them.
https://islamqa.info/en/82859
Even such a well known public facing Islamic site doesn't try to hide this fact, so its acceptance still occur's quite frequently.
Attempts to modernize the religion and ban it, haven't been met with consisency.
I am very well acquinted with Islam, Years of having read the Quran, Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, Tafsirs of Ibn Kathir and Al-jalalyn, Al-Tabari and a host of other secondary material from western and eastern scholars.
How everything is somehow Donald Trump is beyond me.
"Young girls are being sent to Britain for the abusive removal of their genitalia by migrant families across Europe because the country is regarded as a soft touch on the ritual, an investigation has found."
-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/migrants-from-europe-bringing-girls-to-tolerant-britain-for-genital-mutilation-7965148.html