Regressive Lefties Who Suffer From Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome

I have just seen a new article by the Huffington post that really shows up the stupidity of some lefties who are regressive.

Now we are already aware of the major problem of Far right wing terrorism in the US and in Europe, as major issue. More so in the US. Lets post the article and then I will show how dumb this is.

When it comes to domestic terrorism in America, the numbers don’t lie: Far-right extremists are behind far more plots and attacks than Islamist extremists. There were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists in the U.S. from 2008 to 2016, according to a new report from The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund and The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Reveal.

Looking at both plots and attacks carried out, the group tracked 201 terrorist incidents on U.S. soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016. The database shows 115 cases by right-wing extremists ― from white supremacists to militias to “sovereign citizens” ― compared to 63 cases by Islamist extremists. Incidents from left-wing extremists, which include ecoterrorists and animal rights militants, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df/amp?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

Now for a very long time I have stated within the US, there is a major issue with literal belief in Christianity which is connected to the Far Right. Religion again, who could tell eh? But the bases of this article is to claim that we should not concern ourselves with Islamic extremism because of Far right terrorism, based solely in the US. Its about as dumb fuckwittery as it gets. The Far right is a huge problem in the US. Which requires people speaking up about these wrongs about the Far right ideology. Yet Far right extremism has managed to kill less than those of Islamic extremism over 8 years. I mean think about it this way. The white population is 72%. The number of Muslims is 1% and yet within this 1%, Muslim extremists have carried out over one quarter of terrorist attacks in 8 years. That is staggering. That means there is far more Muslims's extremists per population than white extremists, by a massive margin. Yet if we go back to 9/11 the death toll by Islamic terrorism dwarfs that of Far right terrorism. Are those regressive, going to do the same by calling out about the problem of Islamic ideology, as we already do with the Far Right?

Attacks by right-wing extremists were also more often deadly, with nearly a third of right-wing extremist incidents resulting in deaths compared with 13 percent of Islamist extremist cases resulting in deaths. However, the sheer number of people killed by Islamist extremists ― a total of 90 people killed ― was higher than the death toll at the hands of right-wing extremists ― 79 people killed

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df/amp?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

Which means the fatality rate and those injured from far less attacks Far Right attacks is far greater from Islamic terrorism.
Both extremism's are major problems in the US. Yet those regressive want to compare this global problem based on the US. The mind boggles at such stupidity.

So lets use the same philosophy with the UK.

Lets take this year alone on Islamic terrorism verses Far right

36 people have been killed and 217 injured in 3 attacks this year.

Compare this to one Far Right attack this year that killed 1 Muslim and injured 11

Then go over the list of terrorist attacks and those thwarted compared to Far right terrorism in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain


Then look world wide this year alone, and just Islamic terrorist attacks that happened during Ramadan?

161 terror attacks and 1,483 killed. That is from May 24th until June 26th

How many killed from Far Right terrorism in that time?

1

This is a fine example of Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome by the Far Regressive left.

Nobody discounts the threat of the Far right, but its minuscule compared to the global threat of Islamic extremism. I am sure those living in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq etc, feel great comfort in the fact that there have been more far right terrorist attacks in the US in 8 years.  

Different coding...different results. The Post article is counting incidents...

Huffington Post wrote:Looking at both plots and attacks carried out...

you're counting deaths...

Thorin wrote:the death toll by Islamic terrorism dwarfs that of Far right terrorism

Apples and oranges...

Your point about binomial comparisons is good.

Original Quill wrote:Different coding...different results.  The Post article is counting incidents...

Huffington Post wrote:Looking at both plots and attacks carried out...

you're counting deaths...

Thorin wrote:the death toll by Islamic terrorism dwarfs that of Far right terrorism

Apples and oranges...

Your point about binomial comparisons is good.

Apples and oranges... Quill?

I agree you need to sort out your religious Far right Neoconservative

What do e do about NeoIslamic conservatism?

We're talking about two different things: I'm talking methodology, you're into the data about Christian conservatism v. Islamic conservatism.

You can't figure fractions until you get the denominators to match.

Original Quill wrote:We're talking about two different things: I'm talking methodology, you're into the data about Christian conservatism v. Islamic conservatism.

You can't figure fractions until you get the denominators to match.

Really?

I am talking about extremism and that religious conservatism tends to come from Islam and Christianity

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We're talking about two different things: I'm talking methodology, you're into the data about Christian conservatism v. Islamic conservatism.

You can't figure fractions until you get the denominators to match.

Really?

I am talking about extremism and that religious conservatism tends to come from Islam and Christianity

And I'm pointing out that your argument is flawed. It makes an invalid comparison...hence: apples to oranges.

That's a point about methodology, but it goes to the invalidity of your whole argument.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really?

I am talking about extremism and that religious conservatism tends to come from Islam and Christianity

And I'm pointing out that your argument is flawed.  It makes an invalid comparison...hence: apples to oranges.

That's a point about methodology, but it goes to the invalidity of your whole argument.

Then why are you looking to censer me, if my argument is invalid mate?

Seems you are running scared?

Of course, The Dodgy One did his twisty and left out half the article, which made no attempt to compare RW attacks with world wide terrorism, but focused on the the USA and how Trump was ignoring the problems of RW Terrorism.

Most Of America’s Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim

Right-wing terror is real, and it's a problem.

When it comes to domestic terrorism in America, the numbers don’t lie: Far-right extremists are behind far more plots and attacks than Islamist extremists.

There were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists in the U.S. from 2008 to 2016, according to a new report from The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund and The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Reveal.

Looking at both plots and attacks carried out, the group tracked 201 terrorist incidents on U.S. soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016. The database shows 115 cases by right-wing extremists ― from white supremacists to militias to “sovereign citizens” ― compared to 63 cases by Islamist extremists. Incidents from left-wing extremists, which include ecoterrorists and animal rights militants, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents.

When it comes to right-wing extremism, attackers are also 'mostly men' and 'almost purely white.' Reporter David Neiwert

While the database makes a point of distinguishing between different groups within right-wing extremism, lead reporter David Neiwert told HuffPost that “those are all gradations of white supremacy, variations on the same thing.” When it comes to right-wing extremism, attackers are also “mostly men” and “almost purely white,” Neiwert said.

Attacks by right-wing extremists were also more often deadly, with nearly a third of right-wing extremist incidents resulting in deaths compared with 13 percent of Islamist extremist cases resulting in deaths. However, the sheer number of people killed by Islamist extremists ― a total of 90 people killed ― was higher than the death toll at the hands of right-wing extremists ― 79 people killed.

Meanwhile, Fake President Trump has focused his rhetoric and policies almost entirely on countering Islamist extremism, and not white supremacist extremism.

“As with a lot of things related to Trump and the Islamophobic right, the reality is viewed through an upside-down looking glass,” Neiwert said. “The reality is the most significant domestic terror threat we have is right-wing extremism.”

The Investigative Fund’s findings reflect those of previous studies of domestic terrorism. The New America Foundation, for instance, which has been tracking deadly terror incidents on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11 attacks, also finds an almost two-to-one ratio of attacks by far-right extremists to Islamist extremists, with 21 deadly attacks by far-right extremists, compared to 11 by Islamist extremists.

Despite the facts, many Americans still associate terror attacks with Islamist extremists rather than far-right extremists, Neiwart noted.

“I think the larger perception in the public ― and this includes many progressives and liberals ― is the inversion of the reality: that the greatest threat we face is Islamist radicals,” Neiwert said. “And it’s reflected in the way the press report upon various kinds of domestic terror attacks: When it’s a white domestic terrorist, they underplay it, write it off to mental illness.”

The reality is the most significant domestic terror threat we have is right-wing extremism. Reporter David Neiwert

The media has a long history of double standards when it comes to covering terrorism ― starting with how slow mainstream media is to label attacks by white perpetrators as “terrorism,” and quick to label them as such when attackers are perceived as nonwhite or “other” ― and specifically, Muslim.

Part of problem is the complex nature of how officials choose to categorize attacks as terrorism. The FBI has specific criteria its uses to classify terrorist incidents ― but the public doesn’t always agree with officials’ labels. For instance, many people condemned the government for not labeling Dylann Roof a terrorist after he killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015, even though he specifically said he was there “to shoot black people,” according to witnesses.

“There’s actually a debate over whether what Dylann Roof did was domestic terrorism, when it so plainly is domestic terrorism,” Neiwert told HuffPost. “A lot of this has to do with embedded judgements about where these threats come from ― and that has to do with fear-mongering around Islamophobia.”



The solution, according to Neiwert, lies with the government first acknowledging the scale of the problem of far-right extremism, and then dedicating resources to fighting it.

So far Trump has shown a clear double standard in his response to terrorism: After Islamist extremists attacked London on June 3, for instance, Trump condemned the violence on Twitter the same day ― but after an attack in Portland, Oregon, by a white supremacist on May 26, Trump waited more than two days before tweeting about it. After the London attack, Trump also called on the courts to reinstate his travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries ― which was roundly criticized. After the Portland attack, Trump made no calls to change policy to prevent future attacks.

The Trump administration also reportedly just dropped funding for nonprofit Life After Hate, a group that helps people leave the white supremacist movement.

Trump administration has dropped funding for a group dedicated to de-radicalizing neo-Nazis and stopping white extremism. via @playbookplus

But it’s not just Trump that’s the problem. The Fund’s database goes back to 2008 and shows clearly how government resources have been disproportionately dedicated to tackling Islamist extremism over right-wing extremism. The government succeeded in interrupting the vast majority of Islamist extremist terror cases since 2008, for instance: 76 percent of incidents tracked were “foiled plots,” which the group noted showed “a significant investment of law enforcement resources.” When it came to right-wing extremism, only about a third of incidents were interrupted ― 35 percent ― and the majority of the cases included acts of violence that led to deaths, injuries or damaged property.

At the end of the day, it’s not only on the government to acknowledge the reality of the growing threat of far-right extremism, according to Neiwert, it’s on everyone from members of the media to average Americans.

“First thing we need to do is recognize that it’s there, it’s a problem, it’s a threat ― as great a threat as Islamists,” Neiwert said. “And it needs to be taken seriously.”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df/amp?ncid=APPLENEWS00001



Typical twisting by the new Smelly.

Well there you have it RW terrorism is the bases in American for Sassy to compare to global Islamic terrorism?

The mind boggles at some people are so dim witted.

Now use the above argument for the UK?

Then France?

Germany?

Iraq?

Afghanistan?

Like I said, a prime example of Ostrich Parasitic syndrome

Good Lord, you really are that thick. Global terrorism is not mentioned or discussed, the article is solely about the fact that white RW terrorism in the USA is not dealt with effectively or in proportion.

There is also another way to look at the stats Sassy presented.

72% of Americans (white)

Where there is 115 cases of RW terrorism

1% of Americans are Muslims

Yet between 2008 and 2016 (no idea how they picked those dates out of thin air conveniently omitting 9/11)

They have carried out between those years 63 terrorist attacks

Yet even without 9/11 Islamic terrorism has managed to murder more people than RW terrorism.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how Sassy thinks this is good news, when 1% of the population causes far more murders than anyone else with terrorism?

Thorin wrote:There is also another way to look at the stats Sassy presented.

72% of Americans (white)

Where there is 115 cases of RW terrorism

1% of Americans are Muslims

Yet between 2008 and 2016 (no idea how they picked those dates out of thin air conveniently omitting 9/11)

They have carried out between those years 63 terrorist attacks

Yet even without 9/11 Islamic terrorism has managed to murder more people than RW terrorism.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how Sassy thinks this is good news, when 1% of the population causes far more murders than anyone else with terrorism?

Again, you can't summarize summary statistics.  Have you never been exposed to a methodology course in college?  

Summary statistics (average, percent, etc) are inextricably linked to one and only one data set.  When you try to use them interchangeably, you get nonsense.  They don't have a common denominator. At a minimum, you must properly 'weight' them.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:There is also another way to look at the stats Sassy presented.

72% of Americans (white)

Where there is 115 cases of RW terrorism

1% of Americans are Muslims

Yet between 2008 and 2016 (no idea how they picked those dates out of thin air conveniently omitting 9/11)

They have carried out between those years 63 terrorist attacks

Yet even without 9/11 Islamic terrorism has managed to murder more people than RW terrorism.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how Sassy thinks this is good news, when 1% of the population causes far more murders than anyone else with terrorism?

Again, you can't summarize summary statistics.  Have you never been exposed to a methodology course in college?  

Summary statistics (average, percent, etc) are inextricably linked to one and only one data set.  When you try to use them interchangeably, you get nonsense.  They don't have a common denominator.  At a minimum, you must properly 'weight' them.

I am pointing out how from the beginning the stats are political. As seen they cherry pick dates out of thin air because its already being made from a confirmation Bias Quill. I mean if you were to extend the years for terrorism back to the beginning on of the 21st century, then the deaths for Islamic terrorism would be far more extensive than all other terrorism put together over those years.
So its easy to see how politically biased people can be when they dont present an honest or accurate statistical data on terrorism in the US

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:There is also another way to look at the stats Sassy presented.

72% of Americans (white)

Where there is 115 cases of RW terrorism

1% of Americans are Muslims

Yet between 2008 and 2016 (no idea how they picked those dates out of thin air conveniently omitting 9/11)

They have carried out between those years 63 terrorist attacks

Yet even without 9/11 Islamic terrorism has managed to murder more people than RW terrorism.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how Sassy thinks this is good news, when 1% of the population causes far more murders than anyone else with terrorism?

Again, you can't summarize summary statistics.  Have you never been exposed to a methodology course in college?  

Summary statistics (average, percent, etc) are inextricably linked to one and only one data set.  When you try to use them interchangeably, you get nonsense.  They don't have a common denominator.  At a minimum, you must properly 'weight' them.

Dear Quill, don't confuse the mentally challenged, it's not fair.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Again, you can't summarize summary statistics.  Have you never been exposed to a methodology course in college?  

Summary statistics (average, percent, etc) are inextricably linked to one and only one data set.  When you try to use them interchangeably, you get nonsense.  They don't have a common denominator.  At a minimum, you must properly 'weight' them.

Dear Quill, don't confuse the mentally challenged, it's not fair.

It seem you are the one confused sassy and unable to answer my points

Try again

There is also another way to look at the stats Sassy presented.

72% of Americans (white)

Where there is 115 cases of RW terrorism

1% of Americans are Muslims

Yet between 2008 and 2016 (no idea how they picked those dates out of thin air conveniently omitting 9/11)

They have carried out between those years 63 terrorist attacks

Yet even without 9/11 Islamic terrorism has managed to murder more people than RW terrorism.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how Sassy thinks this is good news, when 1% of the population causes far more murders than anyone else with terrorism?

Thorin wrote:I have just seen a new article by the Huffington post that really shows up the stupidity of some lefties who are regressive.

Now we are already aware of the major problem of Far right wing terrorism in the US and in Europe, as major issue. More so in the US. Lets post the article and then I will show how dumb this is.

When it comes to domestic terrorism in America, the numbers don’t lie: Far-right extremists are behind far more plots and attacks than Islamist extremists. There were almost twice as many terrorist incidents by right-wing extremists as by Islamist extremists in the U.S. from 2008 to 2016, according to a new report from The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund and The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Reveal.

Looking at both plots and attacks carried out, the group tracked 201 terrorist incidents on U.S. soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016. The database shows 115 cases by right-wing extremists ― from white supremacists to militias to “sovereign citizens” ― compared to 63 cases by Islamist extremists. Incidents from left-wing extremists, which include ecoterrorists and animal rights militants, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df/amp?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

Now for a very long time I have stated within the US, there is a major issue with literal belief in Christianity which is connected to the Far Right. Religion again, who could tell eh? But the bases of this article is to claim that we should not concern ourselves with Islamic extremism because of Far right terrorism, based solely in the US. Its about as dumb fuckwittery as it gets. The Far right is a huge problem in the US. Which requires people speaking up about these wrongs about the Far right ideology. Yet Far right extremism has managed to kill less than those of Islamic extremism over 8 years. I mean think about it this way. The white population is 72%. The number of Muslims is 1% and yet within this 1%, Muslim extremists have carried out over one quarter of terrorist attacks in 8 years. That is staggering. That means there is far more Muslims's extremists per population than white extremists, by a massive margin. Yet if we go back to 9/11 the death toll by Islamic terrorism dwarfs that of Far right terrorism. Are those regressive, going to do the same by calling out about the problem of Islamic ideology, as we already do with the Far Right?

Attacks by right-wing extremists were also more often deadly, with nearly a third of right-wing extremist incidents resulting in deaths compared with 13 percent of Islamist extremist cases resulting in deaths. However, the sheer number of people killed by Islamist extremists ― a total of 90 people killed ― was higher than the death toll at the hands of right-wing extremists ― 79 people killed

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df/amp?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

Which means the fatality rate and those injured from far less attacks Far Right attacks is far greater from Islamic terrorism.
Both extremism's are major problems in the US. Yet those regressive want to compare this global problem based on the US. The mind boggles at such stupidity.

So lets use the same philosophy with the UK.

Lets take this year alone on Islamic terrorism verses Far right

36 people have been killed and 217 injured in 3 attacks this year.

Compare this to one Far Right attack this year that killed 1 Muslim and injured 11

Then go over the list of terrorist attacks and those thwarted compared to Far right terrorism in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain


Then look world wide this year alone, and just Islamic terrorist attacks that happened during Ramadan?

161 terror attacks and 1,483 killed. That is from May 24th until June 26th

How many killed from Far Right terrorism in that time?

1

This is a fine example of Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome by the Far Regressive left.

Nobody discounts the threat of the Far right, but its minuscule compared to the global threat of Islamic extremism. I am sure those living in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq etc, feel great comfort in the fact that there have been more far right terrorist attacks in the US in 8 years.  

Then you can also attempt to counter the above sassy

In your own time

75% of the islamist terrorists planned attacks were foiled...

Imagine the death toll if only 35% were foiled... as the huff and puff article says only 35% of 'rw terrorist' plots were foiled...

And i bet most of these so called 'rw terrorist' attacks are relatively minor in comparison, and arguably neither 'terrorist' or 'rw'...


While im sure the list of islamist terrorists attacks are undeniably islamist and terrorist in their nature, and that the details of each would make truly grim reading, and that they are all plots to kill and maim as many people as possible...!


Sassy... you need to wake up!

RW terrorism is real...

It was the democrats who started the KKK...

Original Quill wrote:RW terrorism is real...

Those are some of the most horrific and chilling photos I have ever seen.

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the democrats who started the KKK...

Actually, they were Confederates, remember? They drifted about until Lee Atwater mobilized them into a southern element of the Republican Party.

The anti-slavery fork of the Republican Party spun off into Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912.

Original Quill wrote:RW terrorism is real...

strange fruit

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the democrats who started the KKK...

Actually, they were Confederates, remember?  They drifted about until Lee Atwater mobilized them into a southern element of the Republican Party.

The anti-slavery fork of the Republican Party spun off into Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912.

Tommy stopped history lessons after nursery school.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/inconvenient-truth-about-democratic-party

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-kkk/


The kkk was the paramilitary wing of the democrats... pretty much like how the IRA was/is the paramilitary wing of Sien Fein...

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/inconvenient-truth-about-democratic-party

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-kkk/


The kkk was the paramilitary wing of the democrats... pretty much like how the IRA was/is the paramilitary wing of Sien Fein...

That faction of the democratic party broke off, as did their states, which started the civil war.  They became the Confederates, while residual democrats became the populists.  Grant was the top Union general, who later became Republican president.

The civil war obviously broke apart the Democratic Party, as it did the whole country.
What you are struggling to say is that Democrats were pro-slavery.  The reason you can only get Alt-Rt sources is that it isn't true.  The Confederates weren't still Democrats.  Break-away southerners were pro-slavery and dissolved the union.  Technically, according to them at the time, they were no longer citizens of the same country...let alone members of a party within that country.

The loss of the civil war so devastated the south that they had no party or association left.  The KKK was a rag-ass group of violence-prone hangers on, who had no political affiliations.  They were like the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang; are the Hell's Angels Democrat or Republican?  They are just criminal outliers.

Lee Atwater was a Republican operative who saw potential voters in these racist southerns, if only he was able to organize them in covert ways.  Thus the Republican Southern Strategy was born.  The Southern Strategy is why the Republican Party today is the party of racism.

Where your argument falls down completely is the fact that they werent just extremely hostile and violent towards the blacks (who overwhelmingly supported the republicans), but also extremely hostile and violent towards republicans too...

But extremely friendly with and supportive of the democrats...

Says it all really...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Where your argument falls down completely is the fact that they werent just extremely hostile and violent towards the blacks (who overwhelmingly supported the republicans), but also extremely hostile and violent towards republicans too...

But extremely friendly with and supportive of the democrats...

Says it all really...!

The whole Confederacy was pissed...period! They broke up the country, created a civil war, the most costly war in American history, and they're still pissed..

But none of that says that the KKK was democratic, which was your initial claim. The southerners comprised a separate estate, waiting to go with whichever party made them their racist deal. Republican Atwater made the offer, and they went for it.