I don’t think anything fits neatly within the left or right wing.
But we’re not talking about Islam, we’re talking about Islamist terrorism, which tends to be more concerned with tribalism, Islamic supremacy, and an opposition to “immoral secularism.” Most contemporary Islamist terrorists don’t fight for economic social justice, certainly not for socialism or what we would consider “leftist” social justice.
You'd be surprised. Its not necessarily emphasized on its own but it is part of the wider Islamist project which is why Islamists often have the support of the lower classes. And they often put their money where their mouth is, creating fairly large and well run social welfare organizations offering everything from education to healthcare to credit.
And your hypothetical catholic terrorists would be placed into the Right Wing grouping based on the parameters in the linked study. Just as it wouldn’t differentiate between say a PLO (socialist) terror attack and a Muslim Brotherhood (Qutbist) terror attack within the “Islamist” category. Which is partly why I responded the way I did.
Oh, you think your study somehow negates the media's bias. That's adorable.
Here is a question, when a story is reported on more than another, does that mean it's always reported evenly and fairly? Mateen is a perfect example, he wasn't an Islamic terrorist, he was a gay homophobe like the media reported.
You seem off today, so I’m not going to go in on this post.
I’ll just say that according to all the news I heard, Mateen WAS a gay-homophobe-Islamic terrorist. You seem to be implying that because he was Islamic, he couldn’t also be gay and homophobic/conflicted. That’s just not true.
Has any country in history ever been made better by Christianity or any other religion? I can't think of any successful country whose successes are owed to religion and which religion did not gravely hold back. Who even knows how much farther ahead we would be in the area of medical science if scientists in Britain, France, and Germany weren't being jailed for heresy.
Also, for whatever it's worth, economic inequality and poverty, especially that relating to agriculture, have been historically reduced in Muslim countries due to the imposition of Islamic laws of equity.
I'm just being extra cheeky, I find it amusing that I get called out on it instantly given how truly mean-spirited people are around here, I'm going to take it as a compliment.
Seriously, I'm just screwing around, though I stand behind the spirit of my posts. Without seeing the study, I can't comment on it with any conviction, but I'm immediately hesitant of the pretty obvious (possible) motives behind something like this.
Other than the fact that overly-reporting something doesn't speak to how it was reported, your op was pretty vague as to where you're trying to direct the conversation other than a cheeky, "thanks liberal media" comment, which no offence, doesn't inspire me to be on my best behavior.
The study was limited to United States incidents, which tend to be limited to within our borders. Also, you didn't specific was "it" is within your argument.
As far as this study's methodology, you're welcome to vet it and point out your problems with its SJW libtarded classifications so as to explain why Islamic terrorism receives greater publicity and right-wing terrorism lesser. But preempting the findings of this study or others by saying, "I bet the source sucks"? My, my Mickey, you grow more orange by the hour.
Yes, I recall these garbage "studies" being put out in the campaign; many alleged exactly what this was alleging. They ranted about "right-wing extremism" and "media distortion". I personally went through several of these same garbage "studies" on Facebook during the campaign covering the same period, and none of them honestly registered the acts of Islamic terrorism.
Your "study" has no integrity. It's propaganda via left-wing journalists. Why use it? I can look at each instance cited myself, and review news stories or details to decide for myself if it's being fairly construed. This is also university sourced, but it doesn't obfuscate its data sets: https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/searc...e&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table
Should I post the next two pages?
The only concerted MSM effort in this country in the past two decades has been to downplay the savagery of Islam. ISIS came to be, and that nonsense ended. Try modifying your beliefs to conform to the truth with the rest of us. I know it distracts from your "the White Man is the devil and we could have a utopia if we took all His money" unifying theory for the world, but this one is actually true.
How many times does your side want to get bent over in this debate until you wise up and abandon a losing argument? Your blind devotion to partisan idiocy and ignorance in these matters is precisely why Mr. Orange is running the country.
Speaking personally, that's not really a can of worms you want to open on here. You'd be completely right, but you'd also be rustling core jimmies. It's just not worth it.
The Most Persecuted Religion in the World In early November, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Christianity is “the most persecuted religion in the world.” Although met with predictable criticism, Rupert Short’s recent research report for Civitas UK confirms Merkel’s claim — we may not want to hear it, but Christianity is in peril, like no other religion. While this is a contest no one wants to win, Short shows that “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.” Short is the author of the recently published Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack. He is concerned that “200 million Christians (10 percent of the global total) are socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.”
Christianity is facing elimination in its Biblical homeland. Between a half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have departed or been killed over the past century. Short attributes the intolerance and violence towards Christians to the rising Islamicization of Middle Eastern countries. Some of the oppression is government sanctioned and some government permitted; most is government ignored.
I don’t think nobody cares, I just have a suspicion that many of these “right wing” crimes aren’t mass murders so they don’t get the same attention as mass murders/actual terrorist attacks. They are trying to show that the reporting is higher which is is for Islamic crimes but that’s because more people end up dead, like I said they couldn’t add 9/11 because they would just be too obvious.
Well considering 9/11 was one coordinated terrorist attack it would kinda just further illustrate the coverage gap given the criteria laid out.
A better metric would be casualties rather than instances we'll both agree on that.
I don't really know much about the criteria of what constitutes a right wing terrorist attack or really care that much about it in general. We have a different voting system here so the whole right/left paradigm doesn't really mean as much to me as it does you guys.
I'm talking about the general casualty to media coverage ratio and how skewed it is towards terrorist attacks. We had a the Lindt Siege here which killed 3 people including the perpetrator (so basically 2 people) and it received hundreds of hours of news coverage.
About 3 years later a grandmother killed 8 children and it wouldn't have received 10 hours of tv coverage.
A better example for you would be the terrorist attack in NY late last year when a would be suicide bomber managed to kill no one and the only person seriously injured was himself.
If it weren't for the terrorist part it wouldn't even make the news in a country as large as America but you'd probably agree that it's received about as much news coverage as the boat that just flipped killing 17 is going to.
As far as preventable deaths go there's probably substantially more from maritime related fatalities than terrorist fatalities in America but we'll never have measures or expenditure that proportionately correlates with that risk largely because of how our news reports these instances.
I'm pissing in the wind here though. No one really cares much about anything that isn't outrageous even if it posses a significantly larger threat than the outrageous. Just like I hardly expect anyone to care that our governments probably kills 100 muslims for every one of us killed by muslim terrorists.
Islam is the Pitbull of extremism with all the associated coverage, denials, examples and anecdote about how "their Pitbull" is different. Do all dogs bite? Yep, every breed. Are all reported? Nope. Are all serious or fatal attacks? Nope. Are some breeds more statistically known to bite or kill? Yep. Do they receive more press because of their penchant for destruction? Yep. Does every Pitbull kill? Nope. Does every Pitbull maul? Nope. But when a canine related fatality or mauling occurs which breed is the 1st that comes to mind because of their track record?
According to a study done by the University of Alabama, an act of violence committed by a Muslim between 2006-2015 generated an average of 105 headlines— compared to 15 for non-Muslims.
The same study found that over the same period right wing attacks were twice as frequent as Muslim attacks.
Violence by Muslims is also exponentially more likely to become a national, rather than merely local, headline.
During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed (including the 19 Islamic terrorists) and more than 6,000 others injured. These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes (including the terrorists), 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon.
Hey, you actually responded instead of tucking tail after getting your first pot shot blocked! Awesome, man.
Yes, I recall these garbage "studies" being put out in the campaign; many alleged exactly what this was alleging. They ranted about "right-wing extremism" and "media distortion". I personally went through several of these same garbage "studies" on Facebook during the campaign covering the same period, and none of them honestly registered the acts of Islamic terrorism.
Your "study" has no integrity. It's propaganda via left-wing journalists. Why use it? I can look at each instance cited myself, and review news stories or details to decide for myself if it's being fairly construed.
You know what judges do when they are reviewing pleadings and deciding whether to dismiss them outright? They cross out everything that is conclusory and that is not supported by particularized evidence. Sometimes I do that to your posts, and all I end up with in the end is an "lol" or two and maybe an "SJW."
And you know that just putting "study" into quotation marks doesn't do anything other than show you want to sound pretentious, right? That might fool the uninitiated into thinking you are intelligent, but we are initiated, aren't we? Really, the effect of that entire paragraph is just shouting "fake news!!!!1"
So, I will politely ask that you explain why "my study" is bunk. I also have no fucking idea which study you're referring to: whether you're referring to the OP's study or the two studies reflected in my graphs. So, just like I ask of all the other Trumptards, I must insist you supplement your post.
The only concerted MSM effort in this country in the past two decades has been to downplay the savagery of Islam. ISIS came to be, and that nonsense ended. Try modifying your beliefs to conform to the truth with the rest of us. I know it distracts from your "the White Man is the devil and we could have a utopia if we took all His money" unifying theory for the world, but this one is actually true.
What exactly was this supposed to prove to me? That tidbit seem to confirm the higher incidence of right-wing terrorist plots and the utter neglibility of terrorism in general.
How many times does your side want to get bent over in this debate until you wise up and abandon a losing argument? Your blind devotion to partisan idiocy and ignorance in these matters is precisely why Mr. Orange is running the country.
Firstly, I am not the keeper of all decent(ly intelligent) people - whether on the left or just to the left of Trump.
Secondly, you've never won an argument here as far as I can tell, except for a few against your fellow Trump-supporting reactionaries when you were on your deluded reason-and-rationality crusade. You think that your complete and utter devotion to illogical impulsivity makes you a maverick. Really, it just makes you a moron.
Lastly, persons like you are the reason we have Trump. It's not bleeding heart liberals who dare to empathize with Muslims. It's not liberal pragmatists refusing to be persuaded by your pants-shitting and fear mongering. And it's not left-wing ideologues. It's you. It's fallacious arguers to illiterate moderation. But, most of all, it's reactionary pieces of shit. Like you.[/quote]
You know what judges do when they are reviewing pleadings and deciding whether to dismiss them outright? They cross out everything that is conclusory and that is not supported by particularized evidence. Sometimes I do that to your posts, and all I end up with in the end is an "lol" or two and maybe an "SJW."
And you know that just putting "study" into quotation marks doesn't do anything other than show you want to sound pretentious, right? That might fool the uninitiated into thinking you are intelligent, but we are initiated, aren't we? Really, the effect of that entire paragraph is just shouting "fake news!!!!1"
So, I will politely ask that you explain why "my study" is bunk. I also have no fucking idea which study you're referring to: whether you're referring to the OP's study or the two studies reflected in my graphs. So, just like I ask of all the other Trumptards, I must insist you supplement your post.
What exactly was this supposed to prove to me? That tidbit seem to confirm the higher incidence of right-wing terrorist plots.
Firstly, I am not the keeper of all decent(ly intelligent) people - whether on the left or just to the left of Trump.
Secondly, you've never won an argument here as far as I can tell, except for a few against your fellow Trump-supporting reactionaries when you were on your deluded reason-and-rationality crusade. You think that your complete and utter devotion to illogical impulsivity makes you a maverick. Really, it just makes you a moron.
Lastly, persons like you are the reason we have Trump. It's not bleeding heart liberals who dare to empathize with Muslims. It's not liberal pragmatists refusing to be persuaded by your pants-shitting and fear mongering. And it's not left-wing ideologues. It's you. It's fallacious arguers to illiterate moderation. But, most of all, it's reactionary pieces of shit. Like you.
How many words does it take to get the center of a socialist's trigger-pop?
Stop bargaining. I don't accept your pleas for a treaty. I have my boot on your throat. Why negotiate? That "tidbit" didn't confirm a higher incidence of "right-wing" terrorism unless you're a dunce who thinks that Jihadi-inspired terrorism, ALF and ELF are "right-wing".
How many words does it take to get the center of a socialist's trigger-pop?
Stop bargaining. I don't accept your pleas for a treaty. I have my boot on your throat. Why negotiate? That "tidbit" didn't confirm a higher incidence of "right-wing" terrorism unless you're a dunce who thinks that Jihadi-inspired terrorism, ALF and ELF are "right-wing".
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
