GAO Weighs In On “Countering Violent Extremism”

[*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.