Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

So the experts are still claiming Islamic terrorism is the primary threat to security in Europe and the US but whose opinions are dismissed by our own forum's "expert"?

I seem to recall some making a big deal what the "experts" said in another thread and topic.

Apparently an expert's opinion is only as good if it's in agreement with the already established views of any said person, otherwise it's ignore and "loon".

In case you missed it eh (and btw, welcome back) - this thread is about the facts about the attacks in the EU and how less than one percent of terrorist acts are by 'Jihadists' and how last year none of them killed anyone.

When it comes to Islamophobic theories in other threads - they, you will note, don't present any evidence to support the theories - just beliefs.

In this thread, cold hard stats are presented. You just don't want to believe them.

Cheers,

Shafique

According to experts, vigilance against Muslims, surveillance on Mosques and profiling has allowed law enforcement to thwart most terrorist attacks, but the Islamic threat remains the highest.

The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that the actual terrorist attacks by Jihadists in the EU only account for less than 1% of attacks and that these were non-lethal last year.

I'm happy to listen to the explanations of why people hold on to a belief that the main threat is Islamic terrorism. From what I can see it is because of a wilful selective reading of what the experts say.

The actual terror attacks breakdowns speak for themselves. Over 99% are not carried out by Jihadists.

That the threat has been over hyped is not something that is new to many people. It has been covered very well in this book (reviewed at this link):
http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011 ... -jihadists

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique ,

can you repeat, I did not get it the first 48 times

BM, Gertrude, Statisitics do not mention terrorist attacks by religion, however all experts agree that muslimic threats are the highest.

One recent example among hundreds and hundreds of others: A Canadian has just been indicted in the U.S. for allegedly aiding suicide bomb plot that killed five soldiers. It says a "Canadian citizen", not muslum, and it does not mention at all whatever religion he follows, right. So it doesn't and cannot count in the muslimic terror statistics.

Now if we look at his name: Sayfildin Tahir-Sharif, I have no doubt what so ever, that this man IS a muslum and justified his attack with the teachings of the quran.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/09 ... -soldiers/

shafique wrote:In case you missed it eh (and btw, welcome back) - this thread is about the facts about the attacks in the EU and how less than one percent of terrorist acts are by 'Jihadists' and how last year none of them killed anyone.

When it comes to Islamophobic theories in other threads - they, you will note, don't present any evidence to support the theories - just beliefs.

In this thread, cold hard stats are presented. You just don't want to believe them.

Cheers,

Shafique

What does the EU report say on the threat of Islamic terrorism?

The EU report says clearly what is in the title of this thread - that less than 1% of actual terror attacks carried out by Muslims, and none were fatal.

As I quoted in the first thread on the subject - which related to the 2009 report:

On p.7, the 2009 Europol report concludes:

Islamist terrorism is still perceived as being the biggest threat worldwide, despite the fact that the EU only faced one Islamist terrorist attack in 2008. This bomb attack took place in the UK. Separatist terrorism remains the terrorism area which affects the EU most. This includes Basque separatist terrorism in Spain and France, and Corsican terrorism in France. Past contacts between ETA and the FARC illustrate the fact that also separatist terrorist organizations seek cooperation partners outside the EU on the basis of common interests. In the UK, dissident Irish republican groups, principally the RIRA and the CIRA, and other paramilitary groups may continue to engage in crime and violence.

Perception is not reality. Due to the right wing's influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world. It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat that the very survival of the Western world is at stake. Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized. Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.

dubai-politics-talk/terrorism-the-facts-t41918.html

Do you disagree? The threat was overblown in 2009, and in the 2010 there were no fatal terrorist attacks by Jihadists in the EU, but there were terrorist acts. Over 99% of them not by jihadists.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm not curious about what wingnuts from a madwatch website have to say about the report.

What does the actual report say of Islamist terrorism?

It says that last year no deaths occured as a result of jihadist terrorist attacks in the EU and that over 99% of the terrorist attacks were carried out by non-Muslim terrorists. I thought the OP was quite clear.

Facts, not hype.

Cheers,

Shafique

Does the EU report consider Islamist terrorism as being a primary threat?

Yes or no?

EH, in most European countries Islamist terrorism continues to be seen as the biggest threat to security because it attempts to cause mass casualties whereas ethno-separatist terrorism generally targets material symbols rather than individuals or groups (mail boxes, empty buildings, front gates). EU counter-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove recently said; “The [European] intelligence community considers that the al-Qaeda related threat is still severe and that it is still the main threat to Europe and its internal security”
(EuroparlTV, February 2).

Why when faced with actual evidence that contradicts and Islamophobic perception (in this case the fact that over 99% of actual terrorist attacks were carried out by non-Muslims and the handful that were, were non-fatal) do I suddenly get asked to forget the facts and address hype?

Surely it should be the other way round - given the facts, those that believe the hype should justify their beliefs.

Why do YOU think that less than 1% of the terrorist acts in the EU, all non-fatal last year, should be a greater threat than the 99+% of terrorism that actually happen?

My answer is that the hype does not match the reality.

I agree with the experts who state exactly this - the threat is overblown. Why it is overblown is an interesting discussion.

http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011 ... -jihadists



Ignoring the facts won't change reality.



Cheers,

Shafique

You want to ignore your own source which says Islamic terrorism is the primary threat to European security.

How about you read and contemplate Herve's post to understand why experts consider Islamic terrorism to be the greater threat than other forms of terrorism?

My own source is quite clear about the numbers of terrorist acts (less than 1%) and that they were all non-fatal.

This whole thread is about how the reality does not match the hype.

I have stated that I agree with the experts who explain why the hype about Jihadists is overblown, and why Islamophobes desperately want to believe the hype despite the facts.

It is really for you to explain to us why you believe the hype. You don't seem to be disputing the fact that no one was killed and that more than 99% of the terror acts were by non-Muslims.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:I have stated that I agree with the experts who explain why the hype about Jihadists is overblown

But that isn't what your source says.

And what do these other "experts" say of Islamic terrorism relative to other types of terrorism?

shafique wrote:It is really for you to explain to us why you believe the hype.

This is coming from someone who in this thread quoted a report claiming right-wing terrorism is a primary threat to the United States.

Yet refused to accept that Right Wing terrorism is less frequent and lethal than Left Wing and Islamic terrorism.

You seem to pick and choose which facts and arguments you want to use for any particular angle you're playing.

For Islamic terrorism, ignore the experts and manipulate the stats.

For right wing terrorism, quote an obscure report from Left Wing authors and ignore the stats.

I can only assume, after reading post after post of your drivel, that your brain must go on vacation every time you log on to DF.

It seems you are arguing that I am somehow ignoring statistics?

Sorry, this thread is not about terrorists who share your right wing views and those who don't - this thread is about Jihadist terrorists in the EU and the stats which show they carried out fewer than 1% of terror attacks.

Whether the 99% of terrorists who are non-Muslim are left-wing or right-wing hasn't been mentioned by me at all.

As I said, my point is that the hype about Jihadist threat is overblown and I have cited those who explain why (as well as showing the evidence that it is overblown).



If you want to discuss the split of right wing vs left wing terrorists in the 99% of terrorist acts, may I suggest you start a new thread.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:It seems you are arguing that I am somehow ignoring statistics?

So you didn't post a report in this thread claiming the primary threat from terrorism in the US is from the right wing, ignoring the stats that right wing terrorism is less frequent and lethal than Left Wing and Islamic terrorism?

It's a simple question that can easily be verified; Yes, you ignored stats and claimed by report that right wing terrorism is the primary threat to the US or no, you did not post a report which was in conflict with reality claiming right wing terrorism is the primary threat to the US.

In case you missed it, I said if you want to talk about rightwing vs left wing non-Muslim terrorists, please start a new thread.

This thread is about the fact that Jihadist terrorists did not cause any fatalities last year in the EU and represented less than 1% of the terror attacks. I'm not ignoring these statistics at all - but highlighting them and also the experts who say that the threat is deliberately overblown. You seem to want to believe the hype, despite the statistics.

Cheers,

Shafique

But what do the expert authors of this report - the one this thread is actually about - say of the threat from Islamic terrorism?

So, you don't want to discuss the statistics, but you want to believe the hype?

The experts I agree with, explain why you want to believe the hype despite the facts. I admire your capacity to ignore facts and run away from reconciling your belief with the facts.

I didn't believe the 'experts' who said that Iraq had WMD - at the time I agreed with the experts who said this was all hype. I guess you believed them - did you? When did you realise they were misleading you?

Cheers,

Shafique

What do your "experts" have to do with the views of the authors of the report this thread is based on?

As for WMD's, I'm assuming you must have forgotten that opposition to the Iraq War was not based on the existence of chemical weapons but over whether their existence warranted an invasion, so I'm calling you out as a liar (again) and am asking you what "experts" claimed Iraq had *no* chemical weapons prior to the invasion, preferably notable experts since you claim you believed them over the general consensus (although I'm sure you can google some "expert" I'm sure you never heard of prior to the war).

Why the confusion eh?

The experts I agree with say that the threat is over blown - they use the official EU stats that I quoted which back up their argument. You don't dispute the statistics, but want to believe the hype.

How can I make this clearer for you - I believe in the cold hard statistics from Europol, I believe the experts who have documented the real threat from jihadists and I disagree with anyone who tries to hype up the threat.

I ask you again - did you believe the hype that Iraq had WMD? At the time I didn't - because I believed the experts who questioned the 'official' line and they were proved right. (I didn't make any mention of whether you believed the war was justified or not - so don't try to change the subject - I was asking whether you were one of those who believed the lies that were told to you. You had a choice to believe the offiical line on WMD or believe those who said AT THE TIME it was a over-blown, hyped threat.)

This thread is about the cold hard facts.

Cheers,

Shafique

- because I believed the experts who questioned the 'official' line and they were proved right.

Which experts questioned the official line?

As I said, I think you're revising history.

But hey, I'm sure you've been an active poster during the lead up to the Iraq War, wouldn't be too difficult to simply confirm your claim with a post or two confirming what you say or simply quoting which expert disagreed and claimed Iraq had no chemical weapons.

Which experts made that claim? Come on, I'm sure you can google and find someone and say you believed their claims back in the lead up to the war.

believe those who said AT THE TIME it was a over-blown, hyped threat.)

Which is it? It was overblown or experts claiming Iraq had no chemical weapons?

You change your story with every post.

The experts I agree with say that the threat is over blown - they use the official EU stats that I quoted which back up their argument.

The first part of your sentence says it all. You fish for people who agree with you. Your own official EU report doesn't agree, so you need to ignore their analysis and go trawl for someone who does.

'nuff said.

shafique wrote:The experts I agree with say that the threat is over blown - they use the official EU stats that I quoted which back up their argument. You don't dispute the statistics, but want to believe the hype.

Experts shafique agrees with are experts, experts shafique does not agree with are loons. Typical

Why not address the statistics caps? I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the few that still believe that Saddam had WMD!

Cheers,

Shafique