How do you know that? The information you get on that subject is probably highly biased.
Listen, I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I'm actually an atheist and have a very low opinion of religious fanatics. But generalizing from a very small and likely biased sample is not how I like to reach conclusions.
There is good data, it does get looked at, and good sense can be made out of even that kind of senselessness. However, any definition of ‘terrorism’ that somehow doesn’t include extrajudicial mass killings by Hellfire-firing flying killbots — together with the psychological impact on innocents of their constant overhead flight — somehow seems incomplete. Fools that’re desperate to justify their ignorant, bigoted Muslim ban with incidents like this, but that consider what happened to an eight-year-old girl in Yemen to be “anti-Trump” aren’t capable of understanding that point, let alone considering it.
Exactly. If you follow the dictionary definition, the US has carried out far more terrorist attacks than any other Islamist organization. But you're not going to achieve anything politically by pointing that out, other than angering a lot of Americans. I think it's more constructive to try to find the real source(s) of the terrorism problem and address that, otherwise we're going to be locked into emotionally charged arguments and will never solve the problem. I'm trying to avoid a Venezuela 2.0 here.
That's the thing, you can find studies supporting any position. One problem we have is that we are ontologically biased by having grown up in a Western, predominantly Christian society. It's hard to tell facts from lies (or half-truths) because we're hard-wired to assume certain sources to be truthful.
Politicians and the media take advantage of this to no end. I need to sleep now but I can talk a lot about this, hopefully I won't be too busy tomorrow!
Do you disagree that most terror attacks across the world are committed by someone who claims to be muslim?
Quick, what are you more likely to die from, Islamic terror or a brain parasite?
How do you know that? The information you get on that subject is probably highly biased.
Listen, I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I'm actually an atheist and have a very low opinion of religious fanatics. But generalizing from a very small and likely biased sample is not how I like to reach conclusions.
There is good data, it does get looked at, and good sense can be made out of even that kind of senselessness. However, any definition of ‘terrorism’ that somehow doesn’t include extrajudicial mass killings by Hellfire-firing flying killbots — together with the psychological impact on innocents of their constant overhead flight — somehow seems incomplete. Fools that’re desperate to justify their ignorant, bigoted Muslim ban with incidents like this, but that consider what happened to an eight-year-old girl in Yemen to be “anti-Trump” aren’t capable of understanding that point, let alone considering it.
[This comment was removed]
Exactly. If you follow the dictionary definition, the US has carried out far more terrorist attacks than any other Islamist organization. But you're not going to achieve anything politically by pointing that out, other than angering a lot of Americans. I think it's more constructive to try to find the real source(s) of the terrorism problem and address that, otherwise we're going to be locked into emotionally charged arguments and will never solve the problem. I'm trying to avoid a Venezuela 2.0 here.
Are you still here? I thought you were last seen sieg-heiling and stabbing a Jewish woman.
Your source starts by thanking "START, a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence". That automatically makes it a biased source to me.
[This comment was removed]
That's the thing, you can find studies supporting any position. One problem we have is that we are ontologically biased by having grown up in a Western, predominantly Christian society. It's hard to tell facts from lies (or half-truths) because we're hard-wired to assume certain sources to be truthful.
Politicians and the media take advantage of this to no end. I need to sleep now but I can talk a lot about this, hopefully I won't be too busy tomorrow!
Confirmation bias.