Terrorist Attacks by Muslims Receive 357% More Media Coverage

people are afraid of criticizing islam?
More Muhammed than Islam, but both. Just look at what happened to Charlie Hebdo. And the failed attack on the Texas draw-Muhammed-cartoon. And the attack in Denmark that targeted a Swedish artist who drew Muhammed. And the threats and worldwide riots over the Danish paper's Muhammed drawing. People are scared to make pointed crude criticism of Islam, but especially Muhammed. Dawkins' criticism is academic / intellectual, and not like drawing Muhammed or peeing on the Quran.
 
Never heard much about “right wing” attacks before Trump was elected. It seems like slanted journalism. Take a look at some of the Islamic attacks in that time period and compare the body count to “right wing” attacks and I’d imagine you can figure out why there’s so much more reporting of the Islamic attacks. I’d expect that that the San Bernardino shooting, Orlando night club shooting, Jewish federation shooting, fort hood shooting, Boston marathon bombing (I’m leaving out 9/11 because the article said 2006 convieniently) would garner much more attention than “right wing” “terrorism” like shouting at people for being from other countries or not speaking English. Not saying there is no “right wing” violence but if you want to compare the reporting numbers, look at the body counts.

Maybe you should come to my home town lol.
 
Maybe you should come to my home town lol.

I brought up the Oklahoma City bombing, it’s just funny how this “study” was done after 9/11 and before San bernadino, Orlando etc.

My point is they were intentionally trying to skew the truth with this article by leaving out 9/11 and dozens of other attacks by cherry picking dates that suited the picture they were trying to paint.

It’s crazy that garbage like this gets published or whatever you want to call it when it’s put online.
 
You don't think that islamic terrorism being:
A) responsible for the most devastating attack on American soil in history;
B) a part of a global problem, directed by foreign adversaries; and
C) part of a far more clearly defined (as opposed to right-wing terrorism) pattern of events,

Might have something to do with the coverage it receives?
 
I brought up the Oklahoma City bombing, it’s just funny how this “study” was done after 9/11 and before San bernadino, Orlando etc.

My point is they were intentionally trying to skew the truth with this article by leaving out 9/11 and dozens of other attacks by cherry picking dates that suited the picture they were trying to paint.

It’s crazy that garbage like this gets published or whatever you want to call it when it’s put online.

I can kind of see going past 9/11. Smaller terrorist attacks and planned attacks have clearly been skewed towards right wing terrorism.

I wish you wouldn't play coy about this, there's plenty of evidence out there. Right wing terrorism is a bitter threat than Islamic. If you had specified per capita you would have a better defense imo.
 
Pretty disingenuous statistic.
For one, the data is only concerning terrorist attacks in the US. Terrorist attacks happen all over the world and Islamic Terrorism is the most lethal the past 18 years.

Another thing that is disingenuous is the statistics in defense of the OP -- going back to 1992 with the OKC bombing. And it doesn't even detail what it considers right wing extremism.

Here is a more accurate source: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf
which contradicts the Alabama study.

Screen_Shot_2018_07_21_at_12_00_03_AM.png
 
The irony here is the mainstream media is mostly liberal.....
Liberals generally pro Islam
 
I can kind of see going past 9/11. Smaller terrorist attacks and planned attacks have clearly been skewed towards right wing terrorism.

I wish you wouldn't play coy about this, there's plenty of evidence out there. Right wing terrorism is a bitter threat than Islamic. If you had specified per capita you would have a better defense imo.

But nobody yet has posted a definition of “right wing” terrorism. So this source can use whatever they want really to skew their data even further.

This issue isn’t which one is worse or which one there is more of, the issue is why Islamic terrorism is reported more than this “right wing” terrorism and as I stated from the beginning it’s because firstly they don’t have an actual definition of what they are trying to explain and secondly because typically acts of Islamic terrorism carry a
Much higher cost of life and are much more dramatic (bombs, mass shootings in gay night clubs etc) so they are going to get more press than a skinhead beating somebody up in a Walmart parking lot.
 
Is there a casualty comparison?
Just use the Global Terrorism Database link I provided, and run an "Advanced Search" yourself. You can narrow/filter for TONS of stuff (ex. time period, region, country, perpetrator group, weapon type, attack type, target type, casualties and injury type or total killed, etc.) They even have a filter with 3 different levels meeting the "terrorism" umbrella criteria:
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/

Here are the expanded results for (subsequently ranked the "fatality" column in descending order):
  • USA
  • 2000-2010
  • Any definition of terrorism, unsuccessful or successful
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/searc...Fatalities&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table
fc6d8a67-ef32-464d-bdf6-e403104a85cb.png


That's every (domestic) terrorist attack resulting in a fatality on our soil from 2000-2010.

Add it up.
 
You “never heard much of right wing attacks,” eh?

Could be because— as the study points out— the media doesn’t cover them as widely.
giphy.gif


According to that known liberal trash rag Forbes— if you subtract 9/11 (which accounts for 89% of all terrorist deaths on US soil)— right wing terrorist have killed twice as many people than Muslim terrorists in America since 1992. And 10x as many people as “left wing” terrorists.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...n-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/#232f914e1e74

Lmao. Yeah if you start the count right before OKC and ignore 9/11 (lolwut) you DO get some favorable numbers for Islam apologist retards. Amazing!
 
Just use the Global Terrorism Database link I provided, and run an "Advanced Search" yourself. You can narrow/filter for TONS of stuff (ex. time period, region, country, perpetrator group, weapon type, attack type, target type, casualties and injury type or total killed, etc.) They even have a filter with 3 different levels meeting the "terrorism" umbrella criteria:
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/

Here are the expanded results for (subsequently ranked the "fatality" column in descending order):
  • USA
  • 2000-2010
  • Any definition of terrorism, unsuccessful or successful
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/searc...Fatalities&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table
fc6d8a67-ef32-464d-bdf6-e403104a85cb.png


That's every (domestic) terrorist attack resulting in a fatality on our soil from 2000-2010.

Add it up.

haha, I just sourced the same site. They have a great interactive module as well.
 
Lmao. Yeah if you start the count right before OKC and ignore 9/11 (lolwut) you DO get some favorable numbers for Islam apologist retards. Amazing!

Lol yeah, just leave out every detail that doesn’t push your “study” the direction you want and boom!!! You’ve got a....shit “study”...
 
haha, I just sourced the same site. They have a great interactive module as well.
Doesn't it make this entire "study" from the OP a farce?I can literally synthesize that data by myself in a a half hour using this database. How much grant money and how many years wasted, you think, to build this "study"?

It reminds me of that UofChicago study on gun violence that included every possible pie chart and graph breakdown by demographic, including race, except "offenders" by race. Academia is actively trying to misinform the population and steer our interpretations by occluding data.

It's fucking terrifying.
 
Doesn't it make this entire "study" from the OP a farce?I can literally synthesize that data by myself in a a half hour using this database. How much grant money and how many years wasted, you think, to build this "study"?

It reminds me of that UofChicago study on gun violence that included every possible pie chart and graph breakdown by demographic, including race, except "offenders" by race. Academia is actively trying to misinform the population and steer our interpretations by occluding data.

It's fucking terrifying.

the START data is compiled by the University of Maryland. There is hope.
 
Is there a link to the actual study in the OP or am I jst missing it?
 
the START data is compiled by the University of Maryland. There is hope.
Yes, as I voiced above, I'm aware.

But I approach this from the Chris Rock point of view. You shouldn't expect a pat on the back for not doing what you are not supposed to do: "I never beat my kids." The fact that so much of academia is actively participating in this has eroded my trust in their conclusions. I no longer trust their "peer review". So now I look to those who enlighten me with facts, not with opinions/conclusions.
 
Does anyone here actually like or care about Muslims?
 
Does anyone here actually like or care about Muslims?
Why are you conflating "like" and "care"? Is this how you think?

I care about Muslim civil rights because it is tantamount to caring about my own rights. Yes, I care.
 
Why are you conflating "like" and "care"? Is this how you think?

I care about Muslim civil rights because it is tantamount to caring about my own rights. Yes, I care.

Do you even like Muslims?

The left get militantly defensive of their pet Muslims whenever anyone coughs in their direction.
 
I understand discounting 9/11 since its a serious outlier but at the same time don't you think that uniquely traumatic event has almost everything to do with our higher sensitivity to Islamist terror attacks? Hypothetically let's say you have 500 terror attacks by left wing terror groups over ten years which in total kill 1,000 and where no single attack killed more than three people but during the same time frame there are two right wing terror attacks which combined also kill 1,000 people. Don't you think its only natural that the latter would get more media coverage and that the nation would be more sensitive to right wing terror attacks as a result because the individual attacks are more newsworthy and traumatic?

I don't think Islam fits neatly within the right or left wing. Sure they have some very socially conservative beliefs but they also believe in economic social justice which is traditionally a left wing idea.

Christian terrorism is classified as right wing because the religion is often just used as an identity marker for right wing groups. If a Catholic terror group which supports labor rights and anti-poverty measures committed a terrorist attack it wouldn't make sense to classify it as right wing

What a fucking moronic thing to say. Did you have an aneurysm or something?

Drunks gonna drunk forgive my friend trust me its difficult to be sobber.
 
Back
Top