You didn't post a link to Europol though, did you? You posted a pie chart created by some people called Counterfire, blatantly intended to give the impression that Islamist terror is an insignificant proportion of all terrorism that's happened in Europe in the recent past. Which is clearly bullshit, as you well know.
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.
And no, I don't accept that the simple number of "foiled or successful plots" is a good metric of the total "amount" of terrorism going on. A terror "plot" that begins and ends when some tragic special-needs case gets arrested for googling how 2 buy ricin on a public library computer is not equivalent to a sophisticated multiple bombing committed by a cell of Afghan-trained terrorists that kills tens or hundreds of people. If you take into account the scale of successful attacks, the picture for the last decade and a half looks like this
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.
Islamism certainly has a monopoly or near-monopoly on deadly terror attacks in France in recent years.
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.
Are you seriously telling me you didn't assume it was an Islamist attack when you first heard about it? Who's "full of it" now?
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.
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.
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:
Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator.
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.