Newest Threat: Women
Feb 15, 2008, 3:37 pm
#77
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Since you didn't provide the link to specifically where you got the information to draw these conclusions, I googled "Patterns of Global Terrorism" and found that the last such report was in 2003, which I presume is the one you referred to since you said "Pre-Iraq invasion".
The link for this is here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/c12108.htm
However, nothing in this report seems to support your assertion that Latin America was a particular hotspot for terrorist activity. In fact, Latin America is lumped in with the whole of the "Western Hemisphere" (see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31640.htm) and the report on the region begins with this statement; "The international terrorism threat in the Western Hemisphere remained low during 2003 compared to other world regions"
If you look at the summary page, or "year in review" here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33771.htm and scroll down to the charts that indicate where terrorist activity is mostly occurring, you find that both the number of attacks and the number of deaths due to int'l terrorism were highest in the Middle East and Asia.
When you look further for at the page summarizing the middle east (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31638.htm) it says this as the opening remark: "The Middle East continued to be the region of greatest concern in the global war on terrorism. Major terrorist attacks occurred in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel during 2003, highlighting the damage that terrorism can wreak on innocent people. Terrorist groups and their state sponsors continued terrorist activities and planning throughout 2003. Active groups included al-Qaida, Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Ansar al-Islam (AI), and the remnants of the Zarqawi network, among others."
For E. Asia, the summary is a bit longer, but it appears that the central focus of terrorism in this region is from the Jemaah Islamiya (JI), the representative of Al-Qaeda in S. Asia. For east asia, the summary isn't as neat. These regional summaries are here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31600.htm and http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31611.htm
Thus, it is rather difficult to see how it is that you came even close to the conclusion that Latin America had the largest segment of terrorist events. None of the data points in that direction, nor does the narrative summary on it for this region.
The link for this is here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/c12108.htm
However, nothing in this report seems to support your assertion that Latin America was a particular hotspot for terrorist activity. In fact, Latin America is lumped in with the whole of the "Western Hemisphere" (see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31640.htm) and the report on the region begins with this statement; "The international terrorism threat in the Western Hemisphere remained low during 2003 compared to other world regions"
If you look at the summary page, or "year in review" here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33771.htm and scroll down to the charts that indicate where terrorist activity is mostly occurring, you find that both the number of attacks and the number of deaths due to int'l terrorism were highest in the Middle East and Asia.
When you look further for at the page summarizing the middle east (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31638.htm) it says this as the opening remark: "The Middle East continued to be the region of greatest concern in the global war on terrorism. Major terrorist attacks occurred in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel during 2003, highlighting the damage that terrorism can wreak on innocent people. Terrorist groups and their state sponsors continued terrorist activities and planning throughout 2003. Active groups included al-Qaida, Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Ansar al-Islam (AI), and the remnants of the Zarqawi network, among others."
For E. Asia, the summary is a bit longer, but it appears that the central focus of terrorism in this region is from the Jemaah Islamiya (JI), the representative of Al-Qaeda in S. Asia. For east asia, the summary isn't as neat. These regional summaries are here: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31600.htm and http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31611.htm
Thus, it is rather difficult to see how it is that you came even close to the conclusion that Latin America had the largest segment of terrorist events. None of the data points in that direction, nor does the narrative summary on it for this region.
Feb 15, 2008, 3:48 pm
#78
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 90
OK, now this is getting really silly.
First you say this:
Without providing any way to verify your statements with actual data or facts.
The you assert this:
Again, making claims without demonstraing how you actually got these statistics. You make a vague reference to the State Dept. Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, and say "in there", implying a single report. Said report refutes your assertion and actually supports Dovster's position. Having had this pointed out to you, you come back with this:
So, would care to share with the rest of the class which years you culled the data from, and where exactly the numbers you have are?
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
First you say this:
The you assert this:
So, sticking for just this one moment to things in the public domain, and going along anyway with State's annual reports about Patterns of Global Terrorism, in there, at least before the invasion of Iraq, the largest segment of terrorist incidents listed took place in Latin America; and out of the blood-spilling terrorist incidents noted in Latin America not even 1% of those involved muslims as perpetrators.
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
Feb 15, 2008, 3:51 pm
#79
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Advocating that muslims, a particular religious group, be screened more than jews, another particular religious group, at US airports or more than "jews and christians" is nothing but treating one religious group differently than another. It is the definition of bigotry against one religious group.
Originally Posted by Dovster
By doing so, you are in effect saying that "well, we really can't hold members of this group to the same standards that we would other, more civilized, people."
Originally Posted by Dovster
I don't accept that for a minute.
You have rejected a strawman of your own fabrication.
Originally Posted by Dovster
have known, and still know, too many Muslims to accept them as any less civilized than Jews, Christians, Buddhists, or anyone else -- and as such I hold them to the same standards.
Originally Posted by Dovster
Nor will I make believe that Islamic terrorism is not the major version facing the Western world today. You say that it is "apples and oranges" if I talk about Muslim terrorists murdering other Muslims in a war zone.
Originally Posted by Dovster
Okay -- then how about Muslim terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?
Or Muslim terrorists blowing up a hotel in Netanya during a Passover dinner?
How about Muslim terrorists commiting mass murder on trains in Madrid or the London subway?
Does an assault on an airport in Scotland count?
Shooting at people waiting in line to board an El Al plane in LAX?
Blowing up a nightclub full of Australian vacationers in Bali?
Killing 200 Kenyans during an attack on the American Embassy in Nairobi (and let's not forget that two other American Embassys in Africa were bombed at the same time)?
Guess what? I could go on and on and on with this list.
Or Muslim terrorists blowing up a hotel in Netanya during a Passover dinner?
How about Muslim terrorists commiting mass murder on trains in Madrid or the London subway?
Does an assault on an airport in Scotland count?
Shooting at people waiting in line to board an El Al plane in LAX?
Blowing up a nightclub full of Australian vacationers in Bali?
Killing 200 Kenyans during an attack on the American Embassy in Nairobi (and let's not forget that two other American Embassys in Africa were bombed at the same time)?
Guess what? I could go on and on and on with this list.
Originally Posted by Dovster
Of course, you won't pay attention to it because you absolutely refuse to hold Muslims to the same standards as you would anyone else. Instead, you prefer to remember that one Christian destroyed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City or that decades ago, Irish Catholics were setting off bombs in London.
I remember far more attacks wounding and killing civilians than just those, including those conducted by non-state actors and those conducted by state actors.
Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Feb 15, 2008, 3:53 pm
#80
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
OK, now this is getting really silly.
First you say this:
Without providing any way to verify your statements with actual data or facts.
The you assert this:
Again, making claims without demonstraing how you actually got these statistics. You make a vague reference to the State Dept. Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, and say "in there", implying a single report. Said report refutes your assertion and actually supports Dovster's position. Having had this pointed out to you, you come back with this:
So, would care to share with the rest of the class which years you culled the data from, and where exactly the numbers you have are?
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
First you say this:
Without providing any way to verify your statements with actual data or facts.
The you assert this:
Again, making claims without demonstraing how you actually got these statistics. You make a vague reference to the State Dept. Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, and say "in there", implying a single report. Said report refutes your assertion and actually supports Dovster's position. Having had this pointed out to you, you come back with this:
So, would care to share with the rest of the class which years you culled the data from, and where exactly the numbers you have are?
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
And pay attention to the meaning of plurality.And remember the reference about active military conflict zones.
Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 15, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Feb 15, 2008, 3:59 pm
#81
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
So, would care to share with the rest of the class which years you culled the data from, and where exactly the numbers you have are?
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
I actually looked at those reports for a few years, and I don't see how you could have compiled any numbers from them that support any statement about terrorist statistics, let alone the ones you claim.
He, of course, does not bother mentioning that most of the killings in South America also took part in active military conflict zones (the FARC insurgency in Columbia and the Shining Path insurgency in Peru).
That fact doesn't fit his thesis, so out it goes. It is much easier simply to accuse everyone who applies the same criteria to Muslims as they do to everyone else as "bigots".
Feb 15, 2008, 3:59 pm
#82
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 90
Feb 15, 2008, 4:00 pm
#83
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
Edit: Oops, I misread him. He said "not everything is on the internet." I guess this, too, is inside, classified, information.
Feb 15, 2008, 4:06 pm
#84
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Dovster
He, of course, does not bother mentioning that most of the killings in South America also took part in active military conflict zones (the FARC insurgency in Columbia and the Shining Path insurgency in Peru).
Originally Posted by Dovster
It is much easier simply to accuse everyone who applies the same criteria to Muslims as they do to everyone else as "bigots".
Feb 15, 2008, 4:10 pm
#85
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Go through the reports and compile the numbers for incidents mentioned that are not in active military conflict zones. 50% or more of the incidents do not identify muslims as perpetrators.
Feb 15, 2008, 4:14 pm
#86
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,927
That is not my contention, but it is my contention that advocates of racist profiling -- bigots most certainly -- are dishonest as they are trying to use information from active military conflict zones to distort the picture to institute their bigotry in places that are not active military conflict zones.
Dovster, a reasonable person won't be convinced that the United States is an active military conflict zone like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dovster, a reasonable person won't be convinced that the United States is an active military conflict zone like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq and Afghanistan are an active military conflict zone. Reasonable people know that the United States is not an active military conflict zone like Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparing apples and oranges to try to make bigotry more broadly acceptable is a typical approach, but some of us are not going to fall for it and take it to be that the United States is an active military conflict zone like Iraq or Afghanistan as of late or like various parts of Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia during any selective period. Apples and oranges, some of us can tell the difference between the two.
Feb 15, 2008, 4:18 pm
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Selective cutting and pasting to twist the context and misrepresent. Old hack.
Pay attention to the first sentence. I know those who are paranoid about muslims and are bigots have trouble with that, but try it anyways.
Not surprisingly the advocates of racist profiling here would ignore that quote of mine in their use of selective cutting and pasting and removing items out of context to obfuscate.
I give a clarification, someone doesn't like it, so we get these games from the advocates of racist profiling (whether they admit it or not).
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Since we are talking about travel in a country that is not in a conflict zone involving outside military forces, I'll stick to that unlike those dishonest bigots who like to confuse people by comparing apples to oranges. In terms of blood spilling terrorist attacks outside of such military conflict zones, not even 50% of blood spilling terrorist attacks involved "young, Muslim, men". Not for any period of time, jointly or severally, between 1946 and 2006.
Not surprisingly the advocates of racist profiling here would ignore that quote of mine in their use of selective cutting and pasting and removing items out of context to obfuscate.
I give a clarification, someone doesn't like it, so we get these games from the advocates of racist profiling (whether they admit it or not).
Feb 15, 2008, 4:20 pm
#88
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 90
Wrong interpretation because I sent you to a public source for a moment and also admitted the reality of how things are.
Go through the reports and compile the numbers for incidents mentioned that are not in active military conflict zones. 50% or more of the incidents do not identify muslims as perpetrators.
Go through the reports and compile the numbers for incidents mentioned that are not in active military conflict zones. 50% or more of the incidents do not identify muslims as perpetrators.
(That is, of course, assuming that you actually have findings)
Feb 15, 2008, 4:25 pm
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Dovster, so are FARC and "Shining Path" "in a conflict zone involving outside military forces"? Not of the uniformed state military variety.
Feb 15, 2008, 4:30 pm
#90
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I don't have to do anything, nor do you. You can suppose whatever you wish, but I've suggested how you can go about trying to disprove my statement. Try it the way I mentioned and let us see if you can present accurate findings that 50% or more of the relevant blood-spilling incidents were perpetrated by muslims. You certainly won't be able to do it on the basis of "young, muslim men", so let it be just "muslim" perpetrator.