How the far right over exaggerate and get things wrong:

I have been in a debate, where a linguist has claimed the Quran is the most violent:


“For three years a Danish linguist has analyzed the basic texts of 10 religions. She concludes that the texts of Islam stands out by encouraging terrorism and violence more than other religions. …
On the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the Danish linguist Tina Magaard presents an analysis that questions the relationship between Islam and terrorism, violence and holy war.


I did gasp, when there is the following disparity:

Number of violent passages in the Bible: 832

Number of violent passages in the Quran: 333

Plus how people can miss about Herem in the bible is beyond me God sanction genocide:



This though was not made some have a complete meltdown but me posting some facts, where they tried to claim vies based around religion where you do not see Christians do this at all today with violence. Which I rightly said most Christians in the est are secular and do not hold literal beliefs or religion has any control is the west.


I backed up though you still though see some Christian extremism, though it is less based again that far less people with a literal belief and then less likely to have many extremists or that again there is no religious law governing the country:


This though was what set them into meltdown mode, was some evidence I posted:















The START Global Terrorism Database spans from 1970 through 2012 (and will be updated from year-to-year), and – as of this writing – includes 104,000 terrorist incidents.  As such, it is the most comprehensive open-source database open to the public.
We counted up the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims.  We excluded attacks by groups which are obviously not Muslims, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Medellin Drug Cartel, Irish Republican Army, Anti-Castro Group, Mormon extremists, Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation, Jewish Defense League, May 19 Communist Order, Chicano Liberation Front, Jewish Armed Resistance, American Indian Movement, Gay Liberation Front, Aryan Nation, Jewish Action Movement, National Front for the Liberation of Cuba, or Fourth Reich Skinheads.
We counted attacks by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Black American Moslems, or anyone who even remotely sounded Muslim … for example anyone from Palestine, Lebanon or any other Arab or Muslim country, or any name including anything sounding remotely Arabic or Indonesian (like “Al” anything or “Jamaat” anything).
If we weren’t sure what the person’s affiliation was, we looked up the name of the group to determine whether it could in any way be connected to Muslims.
Based on our review of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil contained within the START database, we determined that approximately 60 were carried out by Muslims.
In other words, approximately 2.5% of all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1970 and 2012 were carried out by Muslims.*  This is a tiny proportion of all attacks.
(We determined that approximately 118 of the terror attacks – or 4.9% – were carried out by Jewish groups such as Jewish Armed Resistance, the Jewish Defense League, Jewish Action Movement, United Jewish Underground and Thunder of Zion. This is almost twice the percentage of Islamic attacks within the United States.  In addition, there were approximately 168 attacks – or 7% – by anti-abortion activists, who tend to be Christian. Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional  – a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization –  carried out more than 120 bomb attacks on U.S. targets between 1974 and 1983, and there were some 41 attacks by Cuban exiles, and a number of attacks by other Latin American groups. If we look at worldwide attacks – instead of just attacks on U.S. soil – Sunni Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorism.  However: 1. Muslims are also the main victims of terror attacks worldwide; and 2. the U.S. backs the most radical types of Sunnis over more moderate Muslims and Arab secularists.)
Moreover, another study undertaken by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – called “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States” – found:

Between 1970 and 2011, 32 percent of the perpetrator groups were motivated by ethnonationalist/separatist agendas, 28 percent were motivated by single issues, such as animal rights or opposition to war, and seven percent were motivated by religious beliefs. In addition, 11 percent of the perpetrator groups were classified as extreme right-wing, and 22 percent were categorized as extreme left-wing.
Preliminary findings from PPT-US data between 1970 and 2011 also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time, with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent 40 percent of all emergent groups from 2000-2011 (two out of five), they only account for seven percent of groups over time.

Similarly, a third study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Religion found that religion alone is not a key factor in determining which terrorists want to use weapons of mass destruction:

The available empirical data show that there is not a significant relationship between terrorist organizations’ pursuit of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear) weapons and the mere possession of a religious ideology, according to a new quantitative study by START researchers Victor Asal, Gary Ackerman and Karl Rethemeyer.

Therefore, Muslims are not more likely than other groups to want to use WMDs.
* The Boston marathon bombing was not included in this analysis, as START has not yet updated its database to include 2013 terrorist attacks.  3 people died in the Boston attack.  While tragic, we are confident that non-Musliims killed more than 3 during this same period.
We are not experts in terrorism analysis.  We would therefore defer to people like Kurzman on the exact number.  However, every quantitative analysis of terrorism in the U.S. we have read shows that the percent of terror attacks carried out by Muslims is far less than 10%.
Postscript: State-sponsored terrorism is beyond the scope of this discussion, and was not included in our statistical analysis.  Specifically, the following arguments are beyond the scope of this discussion, as we are focusing solely on non-state terrorism:



Followed by this:




Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.
As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.
I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.
Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)

Belgium– yes, the Belgium of strawberry beer and quaint Gravensteen castle– conquered the Congo and is estimated to have killed off half of its inhabitants over time, some 8 million people at least.
Or, between 1916-1930 Tsarist Russian and then Soviet forces — facing the revolt of Central Asians trying to throw off Christian (and then Marxist), European rule — Russian forces killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. That is horrible, but no one, whether in Russia or in Europe or in North America has the slightest idea that Central Asians were mass-murdered during WW I and before and after, and looted of much of their wealth. Russia when it brutally conquered and ruled the Caucasus and Central Asia was an Eastern Orthodox, Christian empire (and seems to be reemerging as one!).
Then, between half a million and a million Algerians died in that country’s war of independence from France, 1954-1962, at a time when the population was only 11 million!
I could go on and on. Everywhere you dig in European colonialism in Afro-Asia, there are bodies. Lots of bodies.
Now that I think of it, maybe 100 million people killed by people of European Christian heritage in the twentieth century is an underestimate.
As for religious terrorism, that too is universal. Admittedly, some groups deploy terrorism as a tactic more at some times than others. Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active terrorists in the 1940s, from a British point of view, and in the period 1965-1980, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups. (Members at one point plotted to assassinate Rep. Dareell Issa (R-CA) because of his Lebanese heritage.) Now that Jewish nationalsts are largely getting their way, terrorism has declined among them. But it would likely reemerge if they stopped getting their way. In fact, one of the arguments Israeli politicians give for allowing Israeli squatters to keep the Palestinian land in the West Bank that they have usurped is that attempting to move them back out would produce violence. I.e., the settlers not only actually terrorize the Palestinians, but they form a terrorism threat for Israel proper (as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin discovered).
Even more recently, it is difficult for me to see much of a difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Hebron massacre.
Or there was the cold-blooded bombing of the Ajmer shrine in India by Bhavesh Patel and a gang of Hindu nationalists. Chillingly, they were disturbed when a second bomb they had set did not go off, so that they did not wreak as much havoc as they would have liked. Ajmer is an ecumenical Sufi shrine also visited by Hindus, and these bigots wanted to stop such open-minded sharing of spiritual spaces because they hate Muslims.
Buddhists have committed a lot of terrorism and other violence as well. Many in the Zen orders in Japan supported militarism in the first half of the twentieth century, for which their leaders later apologized. And, you had Inoue Shiro’s assassination campaign in 1930s Japan. Nowadays militant Buddhist monks in Burma/ Myanmar are urging on an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya.
As for Christianity, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilities that displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?
Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.
Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.
It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as “nice” and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasn’t been repeated.


http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html

I SHALL ignore the fact that that 'Danish' cunning linguist appears to have a Hebrew-sounding name...

OR maybe not..

Lone Wolf wrote:

I SHALL ignore the fact that that 'Danish' cunning linguist appears to have a Hebrew-sounding name...

OR maybe not..

Good point Bee

Hmmm, I thought this thread would be about this:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_zF7nbEvwY

Hahahaha I was amazed when i saw that??
Where did that guy get his information???

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I was amazed when i saw that??
Where did that guy get his information???

I believe it was anally extracted ... Cameron's response was priceless

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I was amazed when i saw that??
Where did that guy get his information???

I believe it was anally extracted ... Cameron's response was priceless

It was just a complete fiasco! How could they even let that air without first checking??
Cracked me up when I saw that! Hahahahahaha

Oh, and the sad thing is that there are now probably a million to two million American adults who believe it ...

They constantly do stuff like that on Fox News, they were created as a right-wing response to a supposedly left-wing media, so they see their responsibility as reporting on stuff the rest of the media "ignores" -- even if that's only because it doesn't exist

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and the sad thing is that there are now probably a million to two million American adults who believe it ...

They constantly do stuff like that on Fox News, they were created as a right-wing response to a supposedly left-wing media, so they see their responsibility as reporting on stuff the rest of the media "ignores" -- even if that's only because it doesn't exist

Incredible. How on earth do they get away with it?

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and the sad thing is that there are now probably a million to two million American adults who believe it ...

They constantly do stuff like that on Fox News, they were created as a right-wing response to a supposedly left-wing media, so they see their responsibility as reporting on stuff the rest of the media "ignores" -- even if that's only because it doesn't exist

Incredible. How on earth do they get away with it?

it is owned by Murdoch who openly practices corruption of political officials.

not only that but america has NO laws to stop media telling outright lies.....

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and the sad thing is that there are now probably a million to two million American adults who believe it ...

They constantly do stuff like that on Fox News, they were created as a right-wing response to a supposedly left-wing media, so they see their responsibility as reporting on stuff the rest of the media "ignores" -- even if that's only because it doesn't exist

Incredible. How on earth do they get away with it?

The way it works on the ground here in the U.S. is that if you criticize Fox News, the right brands you a liberal and then feels you can safely be ignored, dehumanized, etc., because rule no. 1 of being an American Right Winger is that no liberal is ever right about anything.

Rule no. 2 -- truth only resides within the right-wing media bubble: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/07/election-2012-night-right-wing-media-bubble-burst-1/ (as seen at the link, it's a very resilient bubble )

darknessss wrote:not only that but america has NO laws to stop media telling outright lies.....

Well they're not lies, of course, they're just "different perspectives"

Just to expand a bit on that, it's a very neat game they're playing. They spoon-feed the right exactly what they want to hear, building trust, and once they've got that, they tell their audience that the other networks are liberal -- which is a label that many of them were quite literally raised to fear and mistrust.

So no contrary view can ever break through; they have a perfect system for maintaining a perspective that needn't have anything to do with reality.

And they will even sometimes encourage their audience to move away from liberals or take their kids out of public schools, with the effect being that if they do, they'll never ever hear a perspective they don't like.

darknessss wrote:not only that but america has NO laws to stop media telling outright lies.....

thanks to lobbyists on Rupert's Payroll

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to expand a bit on that, it's a very neat game they're playing. They spoon-feed the right exactly what they want to hear, building trust, and once they've got that, they tell their audience that the other networks are Infidels -- which is a label that many of them were quite literally raised to fear and mistrust.

So no contrary view can ever break through; they have a perfect system for maintaining a perspective that needn't have anything to do with reality.

And they will even sometimes encourage their audience to move away from Infidels or take their kids out of public schools, with the effect being that if they do, they'll never ever hear a perspective they don't like.

Hmm

So changing one word you can see how old this strategy is, and the type of individuals that employ it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to expand a bit on that, it's a very neat game they're playing. They spoon-feed the right exactly what they want to hear, building trust, and once they've got that, they tell their audience that the other networks are liberal -- which is a label that many of them were quite literally raised to fear and mistrust.

So no contrary view can ever break through; they have a perfect system for maintaining a perspective that needn't have anything to do with reality.

And they will even sometimes encourage their audience to move away from liberals or take their kids out of public schools, with the effect being that if they do, they'll never ever hear a perspective they don't like.

Strange really. People, are more like sheep, than people.

eddie wrote:Hahahaha I was amazed when i saw that??
Where did that guy get his information???

Steve Emerson is Fox's expert on Gerrymandering, Republican 'no-go' zones where neither blacks nor Hispanics dare to enter. Wall Street is another notorious 'no-go' zone.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to expand a bit on that, it's a very neat game they're playing. They spoon-feed the right exactly what they want to hear, building trust, and once they've got that, they tell their audience that the other networks are liberal -- which is a label that many of them were quite literally raised to fear and mistrust.

So no contrary view can ever break through; they have a perfect system for maintaining a perspective that needn't have anything to do with reality.

And they will even sometimes encourage their audience to move away from liberals or take their kids out of public schools, with the effect being that if they do, they'll never ever hear a perspective they don't like.

Strange really. People, are more like sheep, than people.

The crucial difference being, Sheep won't jump off a cliff.

Republicans will. Look at Iraq!