Nationalism, immigration and racism in the EU
- Thread starter crackerjack
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm actually quite amused at your assertion that one would have to be "reactionary" to have some mental association between terrorism - or, if you want to be more specific, coordinated and lethal terror attacks in modern-day France - and Islamism. I can only imagine it must cost you a lot of energy to so studiously avoid making connections between things that are, well, obviously and demonstrably connected.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
*gun fingers*
droid
Well-known member
The chart is a completely accurate account of terror attacks in Europe since 2006, using the exact same categories Europol uses and the same statistical systems the OSCE and others use, and Europol collate only the incidence and not the effects of terror., so presumably they are also blatantly intending to minimise Islamist terror.
Hang on, you were arguing previously that alleged attacks or plots should be taken into account?
As you can see, Islamist terror accounts for the overwhelming majority of fatal attacks. And fatal non-Islamist attacks would have been almost negligible but for a single man.
Weren't you just arguing against setting an arbitrary date? Go back three years and the non-Islamic body count shoots up. Go back another 8 years and the number of attacks spikes hugely.
But what was it you were saying about 'genocide top trumps' recently? You seem to suddenly have little hesitation in deploying a body count argument when it suits you.
IN france... ...moving the goalposts again, but fine. This is not true, or rather was not true until yesterday. I have to question the accuracy of the graph above. If you go directly to your source, the global terrorism database, between 2000-2014 (the last year of available data) 18 people were killed and 121 injured in France by individual or separatist terror attacks.
And the lesson I learned from Brevik is not to make assumptions in the immediate aftermath of an attack, which is what you were doing last night and what I was arguing against. Statistically speaking its an incorrect assumption to make, or it was at least.
There have been three major terror attacks in Europe in 'recent years' (since 2011). Two have been Islamist, one has not. One killed 20 people, one killed 69 and the atrocity last night killed 130. Between 2011- 2014, 111 people were killed in terror attacks in Western Europe, all by individuals, separatist or political groups. Until 2015, there were no organised islamist attacks, so again, up until yesterday the statistical likelihood was it was not an Islamist attack.
Except of course this is a straw man, as thats not what I said. I said it was reactionary to accuse Europol of 'openly and transparently propagandising for the jihadis' by supplying accurate statistics, which is completely clear from my post.
Retroactive justification is the best kind eh?, but from the article:
Another assumption May be correct, but of course, you had absolutely no way of knowing either way.
But just to clarify, I had not intended to downplay the impact of significance of Islamist terror, It is quite clearly a major problem. I was simply pointing out the dangers of knee-jerk reactions immediately after an attack, even if, sometimes, they turn out to be (at least partially) correct.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Droid, I have no intention of engaging with you when you're going to present "information" that's been so distorted and carefully selected as to be factually wrong.
I mean, I assume Europol have taken in good faith the official figures presented by the governments of each of these countries on the terror plots that happened or were foiled in each one - governments that may or may not be inclined to include stats on the ideology of the plotters. You'll notice that almost all of those recorded in the UK are listed as "not specified". Now your Counterfire chaps have dishonestly decided that "not specified" equals "not Islamist" and therefore counted them towards bogus non-Islamist-terror total.
In fact, if you believe them, there were only two completed or attempted Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2013. Like fuck there were - I can think of half a dozen that made the news right off the top of my head! And then to include acts as trivial as "criminal damage" in the analysis, alongside Islamist plots which invariably involve murder and usually mass murder at that - in order to whitewash the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism - is frankly revolting. Where's your shame? I expected better of you than this, but perhaps I was wrong.
I mean, I assume Europol have taken in good faith the official figures presented by the governments of each of these countries on the terror plots that happened or were foiled in each one - governments that may or may not be inclined to include stats on the ideology of the plotters. You'll notice that almost all of those recorded in the UK are listed as "not specified". Now your Counterfire chaps have dishonestly decided that "not specified" equals "not Islamist" and therefore counted them towards bogus non-Islamist-terror total.
In fact, if you believe them, there were only two completed or attempted Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2013. Like fuck there were - I can think of half a dozen that made the news right off the top of my head! And then to include acts as trivial as "criminal damage" in the analysis, alongside Islamist plots which invariably involve murder and usually mass murder at that - in order to whitewash the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism - is frankly revolting. Where's your shame? I expected better of you than this, but perhaps I was wrong.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
no wish to enter this personal argument, but to talk about "the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism" is wrong - eg Ennadha in Tunisia
You mean 'jihadism' I guess, of which it's tautological that it's fundamentally violent.
You mean 'jihadism' I guess, of which it's tautological that it's fundamentally violent.
droid
Well-known member
Dear god.
The counterfire chart is an accurate reflection of the Europol stats. it is Europol that include 'criminal damage' and other non-fatal terror acts in their stats. That chart has not distorted anything, it doesn't matter how you try to swing it. If counterfire is guilty of distortion, so is Europol.
You quoted the economist's analysis of the global database of terror right? thats the source you're using and I assume youre happy that they are not 'whitewashing the fundamentally violent nature of Islamism', yeah?
According to the GTD, there were TWO Islamist terror attacks in the UK between 2006 and 2014. 1 in 2007 in Abbotsinch by Al-Qa`ida in Iraq which killed 1 person, and one in Lockington in 2010 by Al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which caused no injuries or fatalities. In the same period, dissident republican and individual attacks killed 12 people.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...chart=overtime&ob=GTDID&od=desc#results-table
So, YOUR OWN SOURCE agrees with Europol, YOUR OWN SOURCE contradicts everything youve just said, YOUR OWN SOURCE is presumably 'revolting', 'distorted' and 'factually wrong', because, you just 'know' of multiple 'plots' off the 'top of your head', in the same way you instinctively know that every terror attack in Europe is Islamist and in this case must have been committed by Syrian refugees (best ignore the possibility of a fake passport whilst we rush to judgement). If the facts contradict that knowledge, well then the facts must just be 'whitewashing the fundamental violent nature of Islamism' as well.
As I said, the very definition of reactionary. Worse than a Daily Mail editorial.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
Not sure, it seems odd, and I would say it probably should be included, but its not there in either the GTD or the Europol stats for 2013. the GTD is certainly aware of it as they have included several non-fatal incidents inspired by the Rigby murder.
Almost certainly due to very strict definitions and methodology and the fact that Rigby wasn't a civilian, or perhaps these conservative security and analysis groups are just self-loathing Islamist lovers.
Almost certainly due to very strict definitions and methodology and the fact that Rigby wasn't a civilian, or perhaps these conservative security and analysis groups are just self-loathing Islamist lovers.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Don't try and move the fucking goalposts - you were talking about terror plots, whether they succeeded, failed or were foiled.
June, 2007
June, 2007
August, 2006
June, 2012
May, 2008
May, 2013
Plus Umar Faroukh Abdulmutallab, the would-be Underpants Bomber, studied in London and was president of UCL's Islamic Society. And then this, from this year, although that falls outside the arbitrary '06-'13 window, as does the 7/7 atrocity and the 2002 ricin plot.
And those are just the ones I can remember.
I repeat:
Edit:
How about giving the "According to..." and "...but these guys say..." a break and using your own head for a bit? The stats from Europol describe 199 terror plots of a "not specified" nature in the period in question, and two that are described as "Islamist". Counterfire have falsely and dishonestly decided "not specified" means "not Islamist" for the purposes of their bullshit pie chart, despite the fact that I found seven - arguably eight - Islamist terror plots in the UK over that period. So to say "only two Islamist plots happened in the UK in this period" and use that data as input to a graphic is wrong - demonstrably, objectively, 2+2=5, the-Earth-is-6,000-years-old wrong. I don't know how else I can explain this.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
Ive tried not to make this personal, despite your rabidly hysterical attempts to assert that I am 'distorting/whitewashing/giving succor to the evil Islamists' etc.
I will make this simple.
- Europol collect stats on the frequency of terror attacks in Europe.
- The GTD collects stats on reported terror attacks globally.
- Both of those sources give more or less consistent statistics using more or less the same criteria.
- The chart I posted is an accurate reflection of the stats.
- Any accusation of distortion, propagandising for jihadis etc. aimed at me must apply also to Europol and the GTD.
- You have used the GTD as your source, so presumably you think your own source is 'factually incorrect'.
Dear god man, dont you even see what youre doing?
First you said that foiled plots etc should be included.
Then you said they shouldnt be included:
Then faced with evidence that your own source agrees with a source you claim is 'distorting/whitewashing islamist violence etc.' that they should now again be included.
Thats three times you've 'moved the goalposts' on just this one single point.
Both GTD and Europol do not, afaik include 'plots' unless some attempt was made to carry them out, understandably enough, as govts, security forces & the media have occasionally be known to exaggerate these things for political and other purposes.
But yeah, I think it would be preferable if you stopped 'engaging' because you're not behaving rationally or making any argument other than "You bad, stop defending teh evil muslamics."
droid
Well-known member
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis
This is all very interesting - is its central claim true though? Would Isis collapse quickly with a Turkish blockade of the type it has imposed upon Kurdish territories? Pretty extraordinary if that's the case.
This is all very interesting - is its central claim true though? Would Isis collapse quickly with a Turkish blockade of the type it has imposed upon Kurdish territories? Pretty extraordinary if that's the case.
craner
Beast of Burden
Erm...no.
This reads like transparent PKK propaganda, and reminds me a bit of the gullible fools like Con Coughlin who push the pro-MEK arguments in regard to Iran.
It's not incorrect that the Turkish state has an ambiguous relationship with ISIS and JN, but the idea that the only block to defeating the Islamic State is for Turkey to allow the PKK/YPG free reign in Syria is...overstating you could say, or fantasy.
droid
Well-known member
'Ambiguous'?
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...xposes-transfer-weapons-supplies-to-isis.html
Turkey is bombing the Kurds, attacking HDP rallies, dragging the bodies of the relatives of Kurdish politicians through the streets and shipping arms to ISIS.
They see an opportunity here.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...xposes-transfer-weapons-supplies-to-isis.html
Turkey is bombing the Kurds, attacking HDP rallies, dragging the bodies of the relatives of Kurdish politicians through the streets and shipping arms to ISIS.
They see an opportunity here.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Yeah, that claim seems dubious - but how about the claim made that Isis would fall apart if its supply lines through Turkey were stopped (whether or not the Turkish government itself is itself the providers of arms)? Would this in itself be enough to cripple Isis materially?