GAO Weighs In On “Countering Violent Extremism”

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He too must have mistakenly thought the purpose of the OP and the CATO article on the report was to show that Radical Islam is a lesser threat that Right Wing Zealots. We'll get him straighten out.

Straighten me out.

Am I more likely to be the victim of domestic terror from Right Wing Zealots or Islamic radicals?

Because the way I read the numbers rigth wing zealots ARE a bigger threat becaus they have committed mroe acts of terror in the US.

Aren't the people committing the most acts of terror the biggest problem?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 02:44 AM)tigerseye Wrote: The interesting question is why are organizations and the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets trying to spin and hide the truth from the masses?  What is their end game? Their agenda? Seems they want to help them to get to the U.S.A. For what reason?

The real interesting question is how so many people have been so mcompletey brainwashed to believe soimething that is 100% false.

The mainstream media has constantly reported on radical islamic attacks and President Obama talked about it over and over again.  How anyone could live in this country and not know this just blows my mind.  These people have been completely brainwashed.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry you could not see the connection.


White people are much more likely to be a victim of a crime at the hands of another white person, but a certain postion of our white population does not realize this.  Instead they obsess on the crime rates of black people and mistakenly believe that they need to worry more about being the victim of a crime at the hands of a black person instead of at the hands of a white person.

Now we see a thread where numbers are posted that show that you are more likely to be a victim of terrorism at the hands of a rigth wing extremist American than an Islamic fundamentalist but you still try as hard as oyu can to make it sound like the problem is Islamic fundamentalist instead of American right wing extremists.

See the connection now?  White racists do the exact same thing in both situations.  They try to ignore the threat from people of their own color and instead concentrate only on the threat from people of other color.  That is why people like you have all the numbers about the percentage of Islamic extremists at their fingertips, but art completEly clueless about the percentage of American rigth wing extremists EVEN THOUGH YOU FACE A LARGER THREAT FROM AMERICAN RIGHT WIGN EXTREMISTS THAN ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Oh, I saw the connection as soon as I saw it was you that posted; I think I even pointed out the connection to many of your other posts.

No one ignored anything, that's just a word you like to use. You may want to see my few replies where I asserted nobody has a monopoly on committing acts of domestic terror. Did you miss those or just "ignored" them?

I simply pointed out that the raw numbers could be used to sway the more simple minded among us. We should also consider percentage based on population; but I have learned that doing so is racist and is not the point of the OP.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 05:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Straighten me out.

Am I more likely to be the victim of domestic terror from Right Wing Zealots or Islamic radicals?

Because the way I read the numbers rigth wing zealots ARE a bigger threat becaus they have committed mroe acts of terror in the US.

Aren't the people committing the most acts of terror the biggest problem?

If populations remain unchanged then the answer is Right Wing Zealout. However if we see an increase in a population of which .09% commits 27% of the acts; they would most likely be overtaken. This is why I stated the study could be used to support extreme vetting. Although the Op assured me that wasn't the point. The point was "some people" will not be very happy about Domestic Terror.

How about you: Are you very happy about domestic terror?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If populations remain unchanged then the answer is Right Wing Zealout. However if we see an increase in a population of which .09% commits 27% of the acts; they would most likely be overtaken. This is why I stated the study could be used to support extreme vetting. Although the Op assured me that wasn't the point. The point was "some people" will not be very happy about Domestic Terror.

How about you: Are you very happy about domestic terror?

You argument is meaningless until you tell me what percentage of the population is right wing zealots.

You cliam you are making some sort of po9iunt by "introducing demographics" yet you are clueless about the demographics you are introducing.

I am not happy about domestic terror.  But I am most concerned about the biggets threat to me.  and the biggest threat to me are right wing zealots because they committ more acts of terrorism here in the US than Islamic radicals.

How about you:  Are you concerned more about the group that you are most likely to be victimized by or are you most concerned about the ones that are a different color and have a different religion?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If populations remain unchanged then the answer is Right Wing Zealout.

Why are they a bigger threat to you when you are more likely to be the victim of domestic terror at the hands of right wing zealots?

To me the biggest threat is the group that is most likely to hurt me.  I don't really care that much about race or religion.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 06:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We should also consider percentage based on population; but I have learned that doing so is racist and is not the point of the OP.  

What do you mean "consider percentage based on population"?

Based on the percentage of terror attacks by each population I am more likely to be the victim of a terror attack from a white rightwing zealot than an Islamic radical.  To me that means that the population of rigth wing radicals are a bigger threat to me than Islamic radicals.

So why shouldn't I be more concerned about the biggest threat?  

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You argument is meaningless until you tell me what percentage of the population is right wing zealots.

You cliam you are making some sort of po9iunt by "introducing demographics" yet you are clueless about the demographics you are introducing.

I am not happy about domestic terror.  But I am most concerned about the biggets threat to me.  and the biggest threat to me are right wing zealots because they committ more acts of terrorism here in the US than Islamic radicals.

How about you:  Are you concerned more about the group that you are most likely to be victimized by or are you most concerned about the ones that are a different color and have a different religion?

I introduced the demographic of Muslims 0.9%. I did not introduced the percentage of Radical Muslim although I did use 10% to illustrate a point. But to make the point meaningful to you I will introduce the population of white folk 79.6% of the population. So without making any assumptions we have a portion of 0.9% of the population committing 27% of the acts and we have a portion of 79.8% of the population committing 73% of the acts. Which presents the bigger threat?

You keep interchanging "more likely to be attacked" with the "bigger threat". In America I am more likely to get killed by a deer than a bear; however, if I ever see a deer in one direction and a bear in the other; I'm not running toward the bear; because I understand the bear is the bigger threat.

To answer you question: I am more concerned about the population that is the bigger threat nd that is the population that makes up 0.9% of Americans; yet  commit 27% of the acts. Despite you continued efforts: This does not make me or anyone else concern with these numbers a racist, bigot, ect... Just means that they have the ability to grasp the concept that analysis include more that just saying 5 is larger than 4.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why are they a bigger threat to you when you are more likely to be the victim of domestic terror at the hands of right wing zealots?

To me the biggest threat is the group that is most likely to hurt me.  I don't really care that much about race or religion.

....and the number show that a Muslim is more likely to hurt you that a white person. To make it simple for you we'll bump the muslim population up to 1% and the white population up to 80%

If 1% commits 27% of the acts and 80% commits 73% of the population. Crude math shows the Muslim would create an act of terror about 30 times before the whit person did once.

And you can assert: "I don't really care that much about race or religion." To a population that does not know you and it is my fear you do so on a daily basis.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I introduced the demographic of Muslims 0.9%. I did not introduced the percentage of Radical Muslim although I did use 10% to illustrate a point. But to make the point meaningful to you I will introduce the population of white folk 79.6% of the population. So without making any assumptions we have a portion of 0.9% of the population committing 27% of the acts and we have a portion of 79.8% of the population committing 73% of the acts. Which presents the bigger threat?

You keep interchanging "more likely to be attacked" with the "bigger threat". In America I am more likely to get killed by a deer than a bear; however, if I ever see a deer in one direction and a bear in the other; I'm not running toward the bear; because I understand the bear is the bigger threat.

To answer you question: I am more concerned about the population that is the bigger threat nd that is the population that makes up 0.9% of Americans; yet  commit 27% of the acts. Despite you continued efforts: This does not make me or anyone else concern with these numbers a racist, bigot, ect... Just means that they have the ability to grasp the concept that analysis include more that just saying 5 is larger than 4.

So if we are concerned about domestic terror we are not supposed to be concerned about the group that is committing the most acts of terrorism?

And you are not more likely to get attacked by a deer than a bear.  Most deer deaths are due to car accidents, not attacks.  But thanks for showing your ability to "grasp the concepts".  But since you brought it up let me ask you a question.  Bear attacks are worse than bicycle wrecks, yet no one makes their kids wear bear-proof clothing when they go out to play while everyone makes their kid wear a bike helmet.  Why is that?  Why would parents be concerned about bicycle wrecks more than bear attacks when a bear attack is obviously much more deadly?

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 07:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1) So if we are concerned about domestic terror we are not supposed to be concerned about the group that is committing the most acts of terrorism?

2) And you are not more likely to get attacked by a deer than a bear.  Most deer deaths are due to car accidents, not attacks.  But thanks for showing your ability to "grasp the concepts".

1) Of course we should concern ourselves. Who the hell said we should not concern ourselves?

2) I had no idea that most deer deaths are due to car accidents; they should probably not drive if it causes that many of their deaths. 

Yes, I got the Fred concept. The deer is more likely to kill you, so the bigger threat.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 07:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and the number show that a Muslim is more likely to hurt you that a white person.

No.  The numbers do not show that at all.  The numbers show that I am more likely to get injured by a terror act from a rigth wing zealot than an Islamic radical. 

So the odds are that a white person is more likely to hurt me than a Muslim.

Is this more of what you call "grasping the concept"?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 07:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I got the Fred concept. The deer is more likely to kill you, so the bigger threat.

You fail at logic.  An accident is not the same as an intentional attack.  You can not compare the two.  A deer getting hit by a car has nothing to do with intentional terror attacks.

If you had a real argument you would not be going down this road.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 07:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You fail at logic.  An accident is not the same as an intentional attack.  You can not compare the two.  A deer getting hit by a car has nothing to do with intentional terror attacks.

If you had a real argument you would not be going down this road.

OKey Dokey Fred. You go with your logic; I'll go with mine.

If I had any real sense I would have stopped when you first came in here screaming Racist!

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My feeble attempt to introduce demographics into was quickly shot down by those who are more open-minded. Please excuse me and my biased slant.

(04-24-2017, 06:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply pointed out that the raw numbers could be used to sway the more simple minded among us. We should also consider percentage based on population; but I have learned that doing so is racist and is not the point of the OP.  

Thanks for admitting how racists and biased you are.

Now I have a post to link every time you try to deny it.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I had any real sense I would have stopped when you first came in here screaming Racist!

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any real sense.  another link for me to save.

And it would have been funny for you to complain about me calling you racists when you have admitted to being racially biased and using racists tactics.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OKey Dokey Fred. You go with your logic; I'll go with mine.

Okey Dokey.  You go with your admitted racists logic and I'll go with mine.

[Matt_Crimson]

Is the "right wing extremists kill more people in the US" really a good argument against Trump's muslim ban? I feel like such arguments like this speak beside the point. Wasn't the point of Trump's muslim ban to stop violent extremists from getting into the country? I feel like the argument goes as "Trump's muslim ban is dumb because there isn't a lot of attacks by radical muslims here" but isn't that kind of the point of the muslim ban? To prevent an increase in such attacks? 

[BmorePat87]

you're both right.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-26-2017, 10:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: you're both right.