GAO Weighs In On “Countering Violent Extremism”

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what the study shows is that a small sect of 0.9% of the population. For illustration let's be unfair toward the Muslim population and say 10% are radicalized that equals to 0.09% of the population. So the study shows that 0.09% of the population committed 27%  of the domestic terrorist acts over the last few years.


Who will this not make happy? Those opposed to stricter immigration laws?

LOL I am sure you are not the one person in the forum who does not understand that the MUSLIM THREAT is one great motivation for stricter immigration laws. But the MUSLIM THREAT is weakened as motivation if it turns out that some of the strongest supporters of stricter immigration laws belong to the demographic which produces more incidence of terrorism.

Also, the definition of Islamic terrorist in this study is rather fuzzy. It includes the Beltway sniper, for example, who was mentally unstable, with no discernible ties to any terrorist organization or ideology, but counts for 17 "jihadist" murders.

What percentage of non-Muslim Americans fall into the category of Far right extremist? Without that number we cannot really determine what percentage of the population committed what percentage of terrorist attacks.

Since jihadists want to re-unite church and state, criminalize abortion, and reduce women to second-class status, shouldn't they be a sub-category of Right Wing Terrorism?

[*bfine32*]

(04-23-2017, 09:35 PM)Benton Wrote: Last time I changed spark plugs I left the seven faulty ones that were the same brand because the one ac delco one was really aggravating me. God I hate ac delco. I replaced it. Car still won't start, but at least I don't have any ac delco junk.

I suppose the point is that you are a terrible mechanic; outside of that, it ecscapes

(04-23-2017, 10:18 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I am sure you are not the one person in the forum who does not understand that the MUSLIM THREAT is one great motivation for stricter immigration laws. But the MUSLIM THREAT is weakened as motivation if it turns out that some of the strongest supporters of stricter immigration laws belong to the demographic which produces more incidence of terrorism.

Also, the definition of Islamic terrorist in this study is rather fuzzy. It includes the Beltway sniper, for example, who was mentally unstable, with no discernible ties to any terrorist organization or ideology, but counts for 17 "jihadist" murders.

What percentage of non-Muslim Americans fall into the category of Far right extremist? Without that number we cannot really determine what percentage of the population committed what percentage of terrorist attacks.

Since jihadists want to re-unite church and state, criminalize abortion, and reduce women to second-class status, shouldn't they be a sub-category of Right Wing Terrorism?

Of course no one has a monopoly domestic terrorism. I simply replied to what I assumed was the intent of the OP. I assumed his intent was to show that domestic terrorism by  non-Muslim hate groups was a bigger threat than that of radical Muslims.

I simply brought up the point that if one considers demographics that the radical Muslim may be more dangerous and questioned his comment of some people will not be very happy. I further assumed he was talking about folks that consider radical Muslim to be a bigger threat. However, he has assured me he simply meant some folks would not be very happy because of Domestic terrorism. I would assert the overwhelming majority of people would not be very happy about Domestic Terror; unless the OP was not being forthright about the motivation of his comments or starting the thread.

As to your critiques of the study linked in the OP: I would suggest discussing them with the person that linked it.  

[Benton]

(04-23-2017, 10:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the point is that you are a terrible mechanic; outside of that, it ecscapes

Which pretty well sums up our sometimes ineffective approach at handling crime/disaster prevention. Which is further reinforced by statements like...

Quote:I simply brought up the point that if one considers demographics that the radical Muslim may be more dangerous  

.... because disproportionate demographics are clearly the issue. More likely to be mowed down by a single white male with a history of mental illness? Then — because of a disproportionate demographic of non-white males — we obviously need to focus resources on everyone who isn't a single white male with a history of mental illness. Because... uh...



I just don't get the argument. If you compare atrocities committed by those with a mental illness to those committed by religious extremists, I'm pretty sure there's a disproportionate amount of our resources going a scary minority that's less likely to kill you than a less scary majority.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 12:13 AM)Benton Wrote: Which pretty well sums up our sometimes ineffective approach at handling crime/disaster prevention. Which is further reinforced by statements like...



.... because disproportionate demographics are clearly the issue. More likely to be mowed down by a single white male with a history of mental illness? Then — because of a disproportionate demographic of non-white males — we obviously need to focus resources on everyone who isn't a single white male with a history of mental illness. Because... uh...



I just don't get the argument. If you compare atrocities committed by those with a mental illness to those committed by religious extremists, I'm pretty sure there's a disproportionate amount of our resources going a scary minority that's less likely to kill you than a less scary majority.  

As I said: obviously my fault. I assumed the OP was trying to make the point that he has assured us that he did not. He simply wanted to point out that some people will not be very happy with Domestic Terror.

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.

[tigerseye]

Islamic radical terrorism   proven over and over and over and...        excuses made for over and over and over and...       not talked about by Obama (can't say those words) or reported on by the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets.

Another attempt to confuse the masses from seeing the obvious. (that grass is not green, you Islamaphobe......say what? )

Their leaders admit their long term plans, admit their countless murders, admit their crimes, rejoice in the slaughter of basically anyone and everyone that is not them from almost every country (thousands of incidents). Their instructed to do it.

Responsible grown ups try to keep them out of our country so they don't become a serious problem like they have become in other countries and corporate owned/globalist politicized judges fight to let them in (to be used to acheive their agenda).

Who's the problem?

The people running around the world murdering countless innocent people. (Trucks driven thru crowds, bombs, IEDs, machettes, butcher knives, gernades, gays thrown off buildings, heads cut off, shot, etc......)

Admitting they did it. So they get full credit.

and Tell everyone they are going to continue to do it.

No other group even compares to what these low lifes are doing in the world.

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?

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2017, 02:44 AM)tigerseye Wrote: Islamic radical terrorism   proven over and over and over and...        excuses made for over and over and over and...       not talked about by Obama (can't say those words) or reported on by the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets.

Another attempt to confuse the masses from seeing the obvious. (that grass is not green, you Islamaphobe......say what? )

Their leaders admit their long term plans, admit their countless murders, admit their crimes, rejoice in the slaughter of basically anyone and everyone that is not them from almost every country (thousands of incidents). Their instructed to do it.

Responsible grown ups try to keep them out of our country so they don't become a serious problem like they have become in other countries and corporate owned/globalist politicized judges fight to let them in (to be used to acheive their agenda).

Who's the problem?

The people running around the world murdering countless innocent people. (Trucks driven thru crowds, bombs, IEDs, machettes, butcher knives, gernades, gays thrown off buildings, heads cut off, shot, etc......)

Admitting they did it. So they get full credit.

and Tell everyone they are going to continue to do it.

No other group even compares to what these low lifes are doing in the world.

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?

I like how this post just completely ignores everything in the OP.

[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.

We are used to this from you.

As sooin as you refused to provide the percentage of non-islam citizens who are right wing extremists I knew you were off on one of your silly little tangents.

I'll bet you live in an area that is over 95% white yet you are only afraid of black people because they commit most of the crime. Even though you are 10 times more likely to get robbed by a white person in your neighborhood your main concern is that blacks.  Am I right?

[GMDino]

(04-24-2017, 12:13 AM)Benton Wrote: Which pretty well sums up our sometimes ineffective approach at handling crime/disaster prevention. Which is further reinforced by statements like...



.... because disproportionate demographics are clearly the issue. More likely to be mowed down by a single white male with a history of mental illness? Then — because of a disproportionate demographic of non-white males — we obviously need to focus resources on everyone who isn't a single white male with a history of mental illness. Because... uh...



I just don't get the argument. If you compare atrocities committed by those with a mental illness to those committed by religious extremists, I'm pretty sure there's a disproportionate amount of our resources going a scary minority that's less likely to kill you than a less scary majority.  

The argument is that white people aren't as bad as brown people.  Same one we've had here over and over.

[*michaelsean*]

So right wing extremists and Muslims make up 100%? The Colorado movie guy was a right wing extremist? The Sandyhook murderer? Virginia Tech. Binghamton.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 09:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We are used to this from you.

As sooin as you refused to provide the percentage of non-islam citizens who are right wing extremists I knew you were off on one of your silly little tangents.

I'll bet you live in an area that is over 95% white yet you are only afraid of black people because they commit most of the crime. Even though you are 10 times more likely to get robbed by a white person in your neighborhood your main concern is that blacks.  Am I right?

Thanks for the critique. I suppose I felt it was not incumbent on me to research data that may dispute my assertion, thought that would fall more on the person disputing. Of course we kinda make up the decorum here as we go along and one's view on a subject can alter this.

Unsure what blacks or crime have to do with the thread, but you never miss an opportunity to paint someone a racist. But to answer your question: You are incorrect on all accounts.

Also the Op has assured us he had no motive to point to demographics in the OP, just suggested "some people' will not be very happy about Domestic Terror. So I have abandoned the demographics slant and will align myself with the "some people' that are not very happy about Domestic Violence

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: The argument is that white people aren't as bad as brown people.  Same one we've had here over and over.

Nope it was to dispute a misunderstanding of the OP. By the contents of the Cato spin on the research and the comments by the OP: I read it as trying to show Right-Wing extremists are more dangerous. From experience I knew full well that trying to defend a slight toward whitey will get you labeled a racist. The OP has assured me that this was not his motive only that "some people" will not be very happy about Domestic Terror. Remember you were "stunned" by it.

[GMDino]

(04-24-2017, 01:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope it was to dispute a misunderstanding of the OP. By the contents of the Cato spin on the research and the comments by the OP: I read it as trying to show Right-Wing extremists are more dangerous. From experience I knew full well that trying to defend a slight toward whitey will get you labeled a racist. The OP has assured me that this was not his motive only that "some people" will not be very happy about Domestic Terror. Remember you were "stunned" by it.

[*wildcats forever*]

Anyone interested in discussing this thread's topic? Or is this another thread that needs to be closed due to the nonsensical bickering that continues to plague this forum?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-24-2017, 02:21 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Anyone interested in discussing this thread's topic? Or is this another thread that needs to be closed due to the nonsensical bickering that continues to plague this forum?

I tried, and I'm not naming names, but some people, ruin it for all of us.  

[GMDino]

(04-24-2017, 02:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I tried, and I'm not naming names, but some people, ruin it for all of us.  

All seriousness aside, this kind of statistical analysis is above most of us since we want to "spin it".  In reality as long we are acknowledging that there is a problem with different groups at lease maybe we can talk about addressing ALL the groups.  Not just the ones that scare us personally.

[BmorePat87]

This doesn't negate approval for policies like the travel ban. As Bfine pointed out, members of 1% of the population commit (not all of them, just members of this group) 27% of the incidents, so the policy would still be backed by this report.

What it just means is those who support this policy as a means of protection should be advocating for policies that address the 73% of the crimes committed by members of a small, though much larger than 1%, of the population.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-24-2017, 10:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So right wing extremists and Muslims make up 100%?  The Colorado movie guy was a right wing extremist?  The Sandyhook murderer?  Virginia Tech.  Binghamton.

Yeah, I am wondering about this too. It is highly suspect that the only two categories since 2001 were Muslims and right wing extremists. There's no way that those two equal 100%, your examples bringing up good points.


Not to mention the fact that it only deals with a number of a total amount of attacks and doesn't consider the percentage of the population that make up that group as context, it also doesn't mention the number of victims from the attacks.

They're both obviously horrible events that are unacceptable and I am glad the perpetrators are all dead or on death row, but the Chaleston shooting killed 9 people.. The Pulse shooting killed 50. Yet on their report, they're treated as an equal events.

There seems to be a lot of things wrong in that linked page.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 09:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like how this post just completely ignores everything in the OP.

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.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 03:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This doesn't negate approval for policies like the travel ban. As Bfine pointed out, members of 1% of the population commit (not all of them, just members of this group) 27% of the incidents, so the policy would still be backed by this report.

What it just means is those who support this policy as a means of protection should be advocating for policies that address the 73% of the crimes committed by members of a small, though much larger than 1%, of the population.

I agree 100%. I just read the Cato article as an attempt to lessen the impact of Muslim terror, by simply using raw numbers to draw an illustration.

As Benton said after he changed his 7 spark plugs: Mental health may be a larger factor than Religious/cult affiliation. I wish more people would take advantage of the mental health services offered through their insurance of volunteer agencies.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2017, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unsure what blacks or crime have to do with the thread, but you never miss an opportunity to paint someone a racist.

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.