Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

capsicum wrote:shafique likes stats, , here some
THREAD STATISTICS
no of times shafique said 99 bombs = 13
% of shafique's post with "99" = 86%
% of peope who take shafique stats seriously = 0%
% of shafique mind infestation = %100

You are seriously underestImating how many DF-ers take him serious.

Great idea caps - although 99 has other connotations for me:






But, you are forgetting a simple point - I'm not asking anyone to believe me, just to provide the statistics that show that Muslim terrorists in the UK are a greater threat than the non-Muslim terrorists in the UK who did launch 99 actual attacks/bombs.

Simple.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique wrote; I keep asking you for the number of attacks carried out by Muslim terrorists in the UK during the time period that non-Muslim terrorists carried out the 99 attacks in official stats.

You are free to argue that this number is more signficant than the 99 real terrorist acts.. but first let's see what the number actually is.

It is a bit rich to question my 'analysis' when I've only really presented one official measure - the 99 real terrorist acts in the UK (by non-Muslim terrorists).

(I'm patient.. the question is quite simple, you see. )

Cheers,
Shafique

And you may persist in asking me your irrelevant questions which I will continue to ignore, unless you’ve changed your argument again, the biggest terrorism threat to the UK is from Islamic extremism and not the 99 NI bombs you now appear to be fixated with! It’s a fact, live with it, accept it Shafique and move on, do you think you are better informed to decide who is the bigger threat to the UK than the anti-terrorist agencies who work for the Home Office? Have you taken a step back and looked at what you are attempting to tell people recently? Get over it Shaf, the 99 bombs are a bigger terrorist threat to NI than they are GB, the biggest terrorist threat to the UK is Islamic extremism, fact.

I understand you believe this 'fact'.

What I don't understand is why you won't/can't give us the equivalent number of real terrorist events in the UK by Muslims over the period that the 99 terrorist attacks in the UK by non-Muslims took place.

Perhaps you're embarrassed?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:But, you are forgetting a simple point - I'm not asking anyone to believe me, just to provide the statistics that show that Muslim terrorists in the UK are a greater threat than the non-Muslim terrorists in the UK who did launch 99 actual attacks/bombs.

Simple.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm not interested in your sideline arguments or embarking on any new discussions every time you attempt to move the goal posts, this discussion is about the threat to the UK and not the threat by muslim terrorists within the UK, the biggest terrorism threat to the UK is from Islamic extremism and not the 99 NI bombs you now appear to be fixated with.

Given the fact there were 99 actual terrorist acts in the UK by non-Muslims, I would have thought it was quite legitimate to ask how many more were carried out by Muslim terrorists in the UK during the same period.

But I haven't been able to comment on that, because the number hasn't been forthcoming.

Interesting that.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Given the fact there were 99 actual terrorist acts in the UK by non-Muslims, I would have thought it was quite legitimate to ask how many more were carried out by Muslim terrorists in the UK during the same period.

But I haven't been able to comment on that, because the number hasn't been forthcoming.

Interesting that.

Cheers,
Shafique

Perhaps you should start a new thread and see how much interest you can generate when applying statistics to irrelevant scenario's?

This thread is about the threat to the UK from within and outside the UK, Terrorism, definition: The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Not just Bombs, the threat includes every form of violence and intimidation. Your arguments persistently refuse to consider anything else but bombs and now you're discounting the threat from outside the UK, your argument is flawed.

I'm glad you find it interesting though.

99 is the number of grains on the mooslim rosary, that s why shaf the mahommedan is so fixed to that number.

What a coincidence!

99 is also is the official number of UK terrorist acts listed by the police force (all by non-Muslims). I've been patiently asking for the equivalent number of UK terrorist attacks by muslims in the same period.

I appreciate the humour whilst we wait for this number to materialise.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:In this thread -I'm in favour of measures to prevent terrorism from within the Muslim community. Education and cutting off funding are part of these measures. If it can prevent even one terror attack, then it is worthwhile.

Sounds like a bad idea to me. My recent thread about education levels in Pakistan and support for extremism show higher education / income levels translate to greater support for extremism.

The report even singled out the recent anti-terror initiative in Britain as being possibly misguided. But shafique claims that he looks at the evidence before making his mind up. So, what evidence does shafique have that more education will combat extremism?

I unhid eh's post in the misguided hope that perhaps he was giving us the figure. Alas.

However, you do raise a good point.

Is the Government of the UK right to target education as a means to combat numpties taking part in terrorism. I think they are right to complement the work done by mosques etc to combat nutters like Anjum Choudhary and his ilk.

I think the fact that there were 99 real terror attacks in the UK by non-Muslims and far fewer (perhaps none) over the same period by Muslim terrorists perhaps points out that the strategy is working in the UK.

Cheers,
Shafique

That's an interesting belief - and I note you don't have evidence for it - but I'm reminded of the recent report that universities in the UK are hotbeds for religious extremism and of the fact that the younger generations of Muslims (assumed to be integrated and higher educated than their parents and grandparents) are more radicalized than older generations of Muslims.

And doing a quick search on google, I find an article by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed explaining radicals are more educated than their moderate counterparts:

It's no secret that many in the Muslim world suffer from crippling poverty and lack of education. But are radicals any poorer than their fellow Muslims? We found the opposite: There is indeed a key difference between radicals and moderates when it comes to income and education, but it is the radicals who earn more and who stay in school longer.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9609C8B63

So, it seems like there's no evidence to support the British government's decision to promote moderation in the Muslim community through education - this has the opposite result, based on the evidence.

What's also interesting is that I am unaware of similar attempts to 'educate' other communities to decrease extremism and promote moderation. I can't possibly figure out the reason why one group is being singled out and targeted when the stats show how peaceful they are compared to the Irish, for instance.

Your argument is with the Government of the UK eh - I support their policy.

The numbers of Muslim terrorist acts in the UK in recent years is much lower than Irish terrorists, so perhaps their policy is working?

I suggest that it is your interpretation (yet again) of facts which is letting you down. Try and see beyond your hatred of Muslims to the facts.

Cheers,
Shafique

stop reciting your rosary al shafiqui, you will find world statistics there
for this week:
jihad attacks 29
deads 169
injured 413
17,302 islamic terrorist attacks

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The OP concerned the UK security revamping it's aims to uproot the Islamist threat. There is no mention of any Irish threat. Shafique is just trying to divert the attention away from the fact that the UK is more at risk from Muslims than the Irish.

The issue was became a priority after four young British Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... 1N20110608

Bethsmum wrote:The OP concerned the UK security revamping it's aims to uproot the Islamist threat. There is no mention of any Irish threat. Shafique is just trying to divert the attention away from the fact that the UK is more at risk from Muslims than the Irish.

The issue was became a priority after four young British Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ ... 1N20110608

Funny thing is before the 7/7 attacks, people correctly viewed terrorism from al-Qaeda inspired groups as the number one threat to GB. Those who blindly used stats were claiming on 7/6 the Irish were the greatest threat.

Because the 7/7 and unsuccessful 7/21 attacks occurred several years ago and people quickly forget the very serious attempts to carry out mass casualty attacks in Britain (which are also several times more difficult to implement than usual Irish terrorism), the usual suspects are back to what they were saying on 7/6 again.

herve - were you asleep in Geography lessons in school? This thread is about the UK and not about what an Islamophobic website classifies as 'Islamic terrorist' attacks!

99 real terrorist attacks in the UK by British terrorists who are non-Muslim vs a much lower number by Muslims in the same period.

Those are the facts.

Cheers,
Shafique

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics” and surprisingly, still today:

The current threat level to the UK from international terrorism is severe. The most significant international terrorism threat to the UK remains violent extremism associated with and influenced by al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda, a militant Islamic fundamentalist group.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-te ... -strategy/

The threat level is severe in Northern Ireland too - and there the British terrorists have doubled their attacks to a total of 99 recorded attacks (real ones) last year.

By contrast, the 'severe' level in the rest of the UK (from Al Qaeda 'inspired' numpties etc) resulted in a much lower figure of actual attacks.

We therefore have the narrative and the statistics.

99 vs (0?) - and both are classed as 'severe' threats.

Taken as a whole, in the UK then, the empirical factual evidence shows that non-Muslim terrorists cause more actual terrorist attacks than Muslims. This is DESPITE the hype and exageration we see from 'phobes - the HO is at pains to point out that the overall threat from terrorism (for individuals) remains low:

But you should not let the fear of terrorism stop you from going about your day-to-day life as normal. Your risk of being caught up in a terrorist attack is very low.

Cheers,
Shafique

If the whole of the UK lived in NI, the advice from the Home Office would be different, sadly for your stats, it doesn't! Your argument is flawed on so many levels.

My argument has been consistent - the reality is that in the EU, USA and now in the UK, the actual terrorist acts that have taken place have been carried out by non-Muslims by a vast majority. That's what the stats show (Europol and FBI, and now UK police stats).

In the UK the overall threat from being caught up in terrorism is low for an individual, actually, it is 'very low' - as the HO quote above says.

But, to put it in perspective, we do have 99 actual terror attacks in one part of the UK which we can use as a benchmark. These were carried out by non-Muslims and prove my original point that the terror attacks by Muslims are not only a small minority of terror attacks, but vastly exaggerated by 'phobes.

I'm not asking anyone to believe in any fancy theory or jump through logic hoops. I'm just pointing out the cold, hard numbers of terrorist acts based on official figures.

Cheers,
Shafique

Your argument has been nothing of the sort and the previous 5 pages clearly show this. Again this thread is about the UK and it’s anti terrorist ‘prevent policy’, it has nothing to do with the EU, the USA or NI specifically, I suggest again as I did yesterday, you should start a new thread and see how much interest you can generate when applying statistics to irrelevant scenario's?

I've just said that my argument for the EU and USA equally applies to the UK.

As a whole, in the UK last year there were at least 99 actual terrorist attacks by non-Muslim terrorists. The number by Muslim terrorists may be zero (I'm guessing here, I've been asking 'ad nauseum' for the figure).

Overall, the HO says the individual risk from terrorism (from all sources) is 'very low'.

Therefore, my argument that 'phobes exaggerate the threat from Moooslim terrorism is supported by the available official stats.

Cheers,
Shafique

Again this thread is about the UK and it’s anti terrorist ‘prevent policy’, it has nothing to do with your sideline arguments, I suggest again, you should start a new thread and see how much interest you can generate when applying your analogy to irrelevant statistics.

It seems quite a bizare argument to me to consider the actual terrorist acts in the UK to be an 'irrelevant statistic' when discussing anti-terrorist measures in the UK.

In the UK, the numbers of terrorist acts by non-Muslims rose from around 40 the previous year to at least 99 last year (official police statistics). The number of equivalent terrorist acts in the UK by Muslims seems to have remained at a very low level (perhaps as low as zero).

I'm in support of the anti-terrorist measures aimed at Muslims - these have been in place for a while, and indeed seem to be working (when we get beyond political posturing by the Tory-led government).

But, that said, you're welcome to think that actual terrorist acts are 'irrelevant' - but allow me to disagree with you on this point.

Cheers,
Shafique

The statistics you are using are irrelevant in the analogy you are attempting to project, please don’t try and move the goalposts to a discussion on the English language, you will lose that one as well.

As I have said on many occasions, 99 bombs in NI don’t have the same threat to the UK as they do in NI, the terrorist threat to the UK is about more than just bombs in NI, if the whole of the UK lived in NI it would be a different discussion, sadly for your argument, NI is considered separately to the UK as is clearly indicated on the Home Office website, your argument is flawed.

Terrorism, as we know it, is a universal threat. NI is isolated. The number of actual terrorist attacks may be low due to the concentrated efforts on national intelligence and security to thwart attacks before they happen.

Yes, the universal threat is 'very low' for individuals in the UK according to the HO quote - and in terms of numbers, actual terrorist attacks by Muslim terrorists in the UK are swamped by the 99 actual terrorist attacks last year by non-Muslim terrorists.

How we interpret these facts is a different matter - and I guess we'll agree to disagree on the 'spin'.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Yes, the universal threat is 'very low' for individuals in the UK according to the HO

Which is a good thing, it clearly shown the HO is doing a sterling job, and the fact remains that Islamic Extremism remains the biggest terrorist threat to the UK. no spin, simple fact.

Interesting belief there. For me though - 99 actual terrorist attacks from non-Muslims in the UK last year seems to be a bigger threat than the 0 (?) from Muslims, but hey - each is entitled to their 'analysis'.

On the re-vamped policy - whilst I agree with the overall aim, I'm not too sure about some of the specifics. Some seem to have been designed more for political spin than for effectiveness - such as enlisting healthcare workers (doctors, nurses etc) in the 'fight'. Perhaps I'm missing something in the detail, but it seems a bit c.ock-eyed to me.


Cheers,
Shafique