Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:
Both counts? How can I be wrong in asking a question?

You were wrong on both:

a) In what sense is it a threat? It isn't as though terrorism is going to topple any Western nation anytime soon.

You strongly imply that only by being able to do major damage like toppling a Western nation does Islam become a threat. As it cannot (at least in the short/medium term do so) it is not a threat. This can only mean something else if you very badly wroded your post

You cannot strongly imply something. Either something is implied, or it isn't. In this case I did not imply what you suggest that I did. Implication requires that a certain thing follow from what I said, and I deliberately took measures to insure that wasn't the case.

Try again.

Dogma, I have had enough with your pedantry. You nit pick over a single word, grossly misrepresent whole passages of what I say inn a vain attempt to find fault, and deny face value whqat you yourself write and above all ignore the questions raised and answered to go to your next picky 'point'.

dogma wrote:
Perhaps I was wrong to state this, but in the posts that I quoted you claimed nothing of the sort, I have no interest in reading the rest of your posts.
Again, I have no interest in reading the majority of your posts. That would imply respect.

You have no interest in reading the posts, but you make false comment on what I say to give yourself a veneer of an argument. You did this before on other threads. Responding to you is just pointless. Ok, bye.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

Fine. My point is that the empirical data is sufficent without further refining. statistical study is a subset of empirical study.
Statistical study is not required at this level, and reliable statistics are difficult to come by on this subject (terrorism).
Others might have ghem (security services) but that is their affair not ours.
Let us get all the mumbo jombo out of the way, looking for statistics is a smokescreen, demanding them is a trap.

Your comment and questioning is at least honest so, a very short summary to get back on track:

1. I cannot find reliable statistics for Islamic terror.
2. I don't think I need to find any figures to conclude there is a threat.
3. Common observation of what I have seen is enough.
4. Vile acts like 9/11, Madrid and 7/7 do not need repeating to highlight their veracity through a statistical pattern, once was bad enough.
5. We cannot adequately seperate the percentage of actual Islamic fanatics from the whole (that would be good data) because people do not fit clear cut definitions. Also an inderterminate number of people refuse to or fail to critique the bombings. Why is hard to distinguish because it is hard to measure human silence.
6. Also most worryingly people can get radicalised very quickly, or converted and radicalised at the same time. Some of the bombers caught were recent converts to Islam.

Orlanth wrote:
Dogma, I have had enough with your pedantry. You nit pick over a single word, grossly misrepresent whole passages of what I say inn a vain attempt to find fault, and deny face value whqat you yourself write and above all ignore the questions raised and answered to go to your next picky 'point'.

What pedantry? I didn't imply anything, you inferred something. There are very different ideas, and keeping them consistent is important to honest debate.

I asked you a question, and you drew an inference which allowed you to process that question as a statement. This may have been unintentional, or it may have been an attempt at avoiding the question. In either case, I'm still waiting for an answer.

Oh, incidentally, I haven't been making a positive argument for anything, except as regards the relevance of statistics. I've been pointing out why your argument is not convincing. These are different things.

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

Fine. My point is that the empirical data is sufficent without further refining. statistical study is a subset of empirical study.
Statistical study is not required at this level, and reliable statistics are difficult to come by on this subject (terrorism).
Others might have ghem (security services) but that is their affair not ours.
Let us get all the mumbo jombo out of the way, looking for statistics is a smokescreen, demanding them is a trap.

I do not agree that statistics are a smokescreen. They are no less than the analysis of empirical evidence.

I go into one restaurant and count five people, including myself, then go on to hypothesize that five customers is the average for every restaurant within 5 miles. One can easily disagree with my hypothesis and look for further evidence in the form of statistical analysis on the subject. Finding those studies is easier than going out and conducting the studies yourself.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1. I cannot find reliable statistics for Islamic terror.

I understand that it may seem impossible, but I can assure you that there is some decent data on this subject.

2. I don't think I need to find any figures to conclude there is a threat.

You already have quantitative evidence, and you refuse to identify it as such. Perhaps you aren't outright refusing to identify it as such, but you're certainly pushing against further study. Your statements regarding statistical analysis do not line up with my personal opinions on that subject. I'm not a scientist yet I still feel that looking further than you have to be a good idea in general. Question your conclusions. Do not accept them at face value. I do not say that to try to force you to do so, merely to suggest that your evidence fails to convince me that your conclusion is in fact correct.

3. Common observation of what I have seen is enough.

We are not looking at a clock. This subject merits in-depth study and if you really want to form a reasoned opinion I would encourage you to look much further than you have.

I am going to be writing a paper on the portrayal of Islam in the media, and I will bring information regarding that subject into the thread as I find it. If I thought there was a good opportunity for a career in journalism I would focus on this kind of study. We know that media outlets have opinions. What I am interested in is how those opinions are conveyed to the general public. It is possible that the main opinion is one that goes no further than creating stories that make the outlet money. It is in their best interest to stay in business come hell or high water.

I am most interested in finding reliable summaries of the headlines that newspapers print. Headlines are hooks. They grab you and they make you want to read an article. They are in large part what sells a story. There is more to it than that, but when people discuss articles they are largely discussing the headlines presented by those articles.

Headlines have a noticeable impact on national discussions. It would appear that they also have a noticeable impact on international discussions, as we see here.

4. Vile acts like 9/11, Madrid and 7/7 do not need repeating to highlight their veracity through a statistical pattern, once was bad enough.

The question here is: Bad enough to merit what action, and according to whom?

5. We cannot adequately seperate the percentage of actual Islamic fanatics from the whole (that would be good data) because people do not fit clear cut definitions. Also an inderterminate number of people refuse to or fail to critique the bombings. Why is hard to distinguish because it is hard to measure human silence.

Given that you feel that way how is one to come to any conclusion on this subject? You leave the discussion open to wild interpretation.

You don't need to measure human silence. You do, in my opinion, need to measure the threat presented at any given time. What is the best way to deal with that threat when you have identified how large of a threat it is? If you feel that your references cover enough ground to arrive at a reasonable answer, I just have to disagree with you.

6. Also most worryingly people can get radicalised very quickly, or converted and radicalised at the same time. Some of the bombers caught were recent converts to Islam.

What worries the most is how vitriolic public discourse has become on this issue. This is a complicated subject that is washed over with grossed generalizations from the loudest opinions. From where I stand I just want to see serious study put into this so I can read those studies and have a better idea of what is going on. I am in the process of finding those studies, and I assume it will take a while because I am going to have to familiarize myself with the background on all of this. The main part to recognize is that we are talking about a very young industry that doesn't have that much history. How long has cable TV offered quickly digested news? How long has the common citizen had access to such a wide array of opinion?

I do consider this to be an issue of immigration at this point in time. There is more than enough rhetoric being thrown around Europe to reinforce my opinion on this subject. I do not arrive at any conclusions regarding the citizenry of Europe, but I can definitely see a whole lot going on within the political sphere.

There is little reason for me to continue this discussion if you have no interest in looking farther than you have.

I WANT TO LOOK FURTHER. I want to have a more reasoned opinion backed up by MORE information.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
5. We cannot adequately seperate the percentage of actual Islamic fanatics from the whole (that would be good data) because people do not fit clear cut definitions. Also an inderterminate number of people refuse to or fail to critique the bombings. Why is hard to distinguish because it is hard to measure human silence.

Given that you feel that way how is one to come to any conclusion on this subject? You leave the discussion open to wild interpretation.

You don't need to measure human silence. You do, in my opinion, need to measure the threat presented at any given time. What is the best way to deal with that threat when you have identified how large of a threat it is? If you feel that your references cover enough ground to arrive at a reasonable answer, I just have to disagree with you.

Moreover, its actually very easy to measure human silence. If you ask 5000 people a question, and 2000 don't answer, then you know that 2000 people chose to remain silent.

Orlanth yet again strikes me as someone who has no meaningful understanding of statistics. And it seems as though that lack of understanding is what is leading him to conclude that statistics are a smoke screen.

Wrexasaur wrote:

I do not agree that statistics are a smokescreen. They are no less than the analysis of empirical evidence.

Indeed, if they can be relied on. I gave clear example ofg the sliding scale of the reliability of statistics from ther very reliable superkaret daa to less reliable politcal data.
My beef is with statistics in relation tio military intelligence that is available to us layfolk.

If i said that all statistics is a smokescreen rather than the statistics you are looking for I would not have gone to lengths to give examples uch as supermarket stock control.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You can see the extraordinary, also because its extrasordinary it might be rare enough to not be worth tallying. Major terror attacks come to mind here, even one major attack like 9/11 tells us enough to know that there is a case to answer for regarding militant Islam without going into further statistics.

Wrexasaur wrote:

1. I cannot find reliable statistics for Islamic terror.

I understand that it may seem impossible, but I can assure you that there is some decent data on this subject.

But can we get reliable data, and more importantly can we prove its authoirty. If we assume yes to the first we still cannot confirm yes to the second easily. Islamic terror statistics are often inflated or downplayed, downplayed by the PC dogmatists who want to beleive everything is fine in a multicultural society, or inflated by those who weant action taken. The 'dodgy dossier' provided statistical evidence of the likelihood of Saddam Hussein having a WMD program, this dossier was the excuse Blair needed to join with Bush for invasion. The figures and claims werre apparently inflated to give a flase puicture by those who wanted Iraq 'liberated'.

Tell me if an intelligence agnecy released documents of statistics how are we to be able to confim their authenticity. We cant, do intelligence agencies lie when they need to, hell yes.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There is little reason for me to continue this discussion if you have no interest in looking farther than you have.

I WANT TO LOOK FURTHER. I want to have a more reasoned opinion backed up by MORE information.

I genuinely wish you luck, and am interested in looking further. I just know better than to try.

I consider your position to be at least mildly apathetic.

You appear to choose not to look for reasons that are not found in your expectations, but your assumptions about the world around you. It works that way because it works that way.

Where intelligence agencies can't be trusted in one case they can somehow be trusted to protect all of us 24/7. I don't follow what you are saying here. They are lying but we should trust them with our lives and the future of our countries?

Anyway, if you take a few hours a week to find varied sources of information on this subject I am quite sure you will be surprised with what you find. If you're happy with the information you have already found it wouldn't surprise me if you would fight against finding new information.

Take some time and look around. You will find contrasting opinions and reasonable discourse on many points within this subject. Do it.
Mainly, I would recommend that you do so, and I cannot stop you from not doing so.

*high-five*

@Wrex.

Terrorism in the UK, the IRA and Islamic Extremism


Terrorism in the UK: Searches, Arrests, Prosecutions and Convictions in the past 10 Years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/05/politics.terrorism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5318439/Nearly-90-per-cent-of-terrorist-arrests-do-not-result-in-conviction.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8536412.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/antiterrorism-law-arrests-fail-to-secure-convictions-2051336.html


List of Terrorist Incidents in the UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2000-present

This list does not include a number of Real IRA attacks in the past year or so.


A Brief History of Islam in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml

Gives background on the historical pattern of Islamic immigration.



UK Census Data (2001)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/eth1006.pdf

This and other reports available at the same site show the number of Muslims, and other religions, in the UK.


Thoughts

The most obvious thing is that all the Islamic terrorist attacks and attempts in the UK have occurred in the past five years, since our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. This does not reflect a historical pattern of Islamic immigration stretching back over 100 years.

The second obvious thing is that the number of arrests for suspected terrorist activity is quite large and the number of successful prosecutions is quite small. This is because a lot of arrests are for dubious suspicions, for instance, we have had photographers arrested on suspicion of terrorism for photographing drain gratings.

This policy is now seen as counter-productive and the police are trying to cut back the number of unnecessary arrests.

Let’s assume that the number of prosecutions reflects the number of plots that are uncovered, plus some innocent, foolish and unlucky people who do something that brings serious suspicion on themselves.

In 2009 there were eight successful prosecutions out of a total of 23 charges brought. It is important to note that these are not all for people actually making bombs, they include things like possession of information that could be useful for terrorism. This is all terrorism, not specifically Islamic extremist terrorism.

Of course we cannot know how many very destructive plots are brewing at the moment, which may or may not be under investigation by the security services.

Statistics about terrorism?

No, that can't be, they don't exist!

This tells you a whole lot less than you think, terror data is a lot different from say marketing data or even broadly similar data like demographics or regular crime figures. Th reasons for this are severalfold:

1. Terror suspects are monitored by intelligence agencies long before any movement is made.

For example many arrests are made in groups, this tells us by logic that terrorists are often watched long before any moves are made on individuals. Consequently the number of terrorists being arrested is not equal to the number of suspects cases are made against. Some terror trials hint of months or years of surveillance. So your arrest data will not tally with intelligence data on threats in the same way regular crime data will.
Yes police might stakeout some crime, but not anythng like to the same extent. Burglars and terrorists are not handled the same.

2. Due to the nature of Islamic terror people who have no previous convictions can be radicalised and turned into terrorists.

Many are never found, the 7/7 bombers Glasgow bomberss were all 'fresh', part of the reason they got to carry out attacks. There are no statistics for them oter than tallying 'successful' terrorists, and we dont have the data to make an educated guess as to their number. Intelligence services may well do, thats their data not ours.

3. Just because figures are official doesnt make then accurate. Especially figures released under New Labour.

New Labour was known for heavily tweaking statistics before release, they were caught out on official immigration figures which were wildely inaccurate.
Ask yourself would the Blair/Brown government have any advantage in making Islamic terror appear more or less of an issue. Might they lie as they had a track record of doing with other official statistics. The difference is with this data we have no means to detect the lie. It was hard for the govenemnt official figures to 'mislay' the details of large number of immigrants due to other sources, though they still tried and it worked for a while. With this there are no other sources, they could for example arrest and try terrorists in large number in camera if they really wanted to and we need not know about it. I really don't think they are doing that, but that is only an example of how much information control there is. So massaging a set of figures for release, or just out and out lying convincingly is not in any hard to do here.
One of the first things any good analyst concerns himself with is double sourcing. The released terror stats are single source information, and are thus suspect. If you want double sourcinng you will need to ask the you-know-whos. Like I said earlier, you won't get an answer.

4. Bodies providing statistics normally supply support or analysis with them. With this you get just what you get.

Any further analysis is strictly in house here. With say market research you will get feedback from those assimilating the data, who know best what they could test how when and what misssing. This is why good documents on released statistics come with a lot of prose as well as the spreadsheet.


Sorry Wrexasaur, the problems I thought you would get are problems you are getting, you want to know more and are asking questions and making comments for honest reasons, not to troll. I would help your search if I thought I could. I knew there were government figures published for what that was worth, but I dont know any other figures. One source, one set of info (all the press eports are from the same source over time), no verification, no independent backup, a source with a track record of gross misinformation. If this were business marketing data at the same level of authority it would be counted next to useless.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
No, that can't be, they don't exist!

They do exist,I never said they didnt. What I said was that reliablility would be suspect.
You are celebrating over nothing.

Orlanth wrote:Sorry Wrexasaur, the problems I thought you would get are problems you are getting, you want to know more and are asking questions and making comments for honest reasons, not to troll. I would help your search if I thought I could. I knew there were government figures published for what that was worth, but I dont know any other figures. One source, one set of info (all the press eports are from the same source over time), no verification, no independent backup, a source with a track record of gross misinformation. If this were business marketing data at the same level of authority it would be counted next to useless.

What problems? I have made entirely clear that this is a very complicated issue that takes time to understand. You don't pick up a paper and 'just get it'. You reference multiple sources of information. This can get messy, but it is a whole lot more accurate than what you are relying on. You have arrived at a conclusion that I am not even sure I understand.

I assume that you believe that Islam is in part responsible for many of the extremist attacks that we have seen. I disagree because I think your premise makes no sense. Islam isn't responsible, but it is because you consider it to be so (?). I don't need to understand all of the history behind all of this to understand that extremist fundamentalists do not represent the largest part of Islam. With your logic I can easily blame any religion for any actions any of their members would take. I won't do that because it is nonsensical.

Extremist fundamentalism is a threat no matter where it comes from, and it certainly doesn't matter that the larger media is choosing to focus on Islamism when it comes to that subject.

I do not believe that anyone has been trolling you in this thread, and in my opinion Dogma has been relatively clear about where he disagrees with you. Your answer so far is to suggest that no amount of statistics is good enough, but if you double source things become more reliable (?). What about open source? Is that more or less reliable? How is it that quantitative data showing what I consider to be a flooded justice system invalid? Those are hard numbers, and they illustrate what is quite possibly the implementation of ineffective tools to deal with terrorism. People that have no business being charged with terrorism are charged because officers feel that 'better safe than sorry' applies to every situation one can imagine. When you flood a justice system with nonsense it will get clogged with that nonsense.

At this point I am not sure if you are saying that statistics are useless, or that statistics need to be carefully understood in order to see their full value. You won't see the world through a crystal ball, but I can guarantee that with a basic understanding of what statistics are, and how they work, you can arrive at reasonable conclusions. You cross reference different sources and it takes fething time. You need to invest that elbow grease to get anything out of it. It would be nice if data was better formatted, but if you looked around you might even find sources that amalgamate data from different agencies. You could be the person that combines that information, and if you wanted you could probably work out a way to automatically combine that information. It wouldn't be easy, and you would need to know what you are doing, but yes, it is possible to get a clearer picture of the world than you are offering, through the use of statistics.

Avoid sources that have a bad reputation, or take that into account when you look at their information. We are looking at an issue that covers the entire globe and involves more than half of it's population if not more. One side did this and the other did that is not a complete view into what is going on here. It is complicated and this subject DESERVES serious study.

I'm going to give Dogma a high five.

Orlanth wrote:
They do exist,I never said they didnt. What I said was that reliablility would be suspect.
You are celebrating over nothing.

No, I'm being pithy.

I'm also questioning the degree to which anything can be considered reliable. Why, for instance, is you 'reasoned look' more reliable than statistics that I might produce in order to inform a conclusion that I were to draw? Wouldn't it be far easier for you to simply than it would be for me to lie with regression analysis?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote: Your answer so far is to suggest that no amount of statistics is good enough, but if you double source things become more reliable (?).

Interestingly, if double-sourcing is good, then isn't triple-sourcing better? What about quadruple sourcing? What about twenty-sourcing? What about rendering those sources into data points, and then using statistical analysis to determine what they are saying, and how many sources are saying what?

At this point it simply looks as if Orlanth doesn't like the word 'statistics' because he has already taken a step down that road.

Im not taking Orlanths side here as I fear he is arguing against Islam mainly because he is a devout Christian and as you know I have no time for those guys either! I also agree with much of what Dogma and Wrex say, but i must say that surely Islamic faith IS responsible for Muslim terrorism because of one irrefutable reason.

Their last words are almost always "Allah Akbar"

The fact they might have beards or brown skin or speak Farsi or whatever is purely incidental yes, but that they happen to be Muslims is NOT incidental in their motivation and the end result.

They believe in their desert fables 100% and are willing to kill themselves during the attack as a direct result of their faith.

It is Religion that motivates them all the way, Religion that gives them the courage to do it, Religion that can make a good person do an evil deed because he percieves he is given permission by "God"

How isnt that proof?

There is a logical pathway leading from their belief to their attacks, sure you are right that there are countless other factors, and apologists love to say that "Islam is twisted" or any other number of "No true Scotsman" arguments, but ultimately they do what they do BECAUSE of their Religion surely?

Everyone who ever became a terrorist for any reason at all was not a terrorist before they became a terrorist.

People that don't believe in God still use the lord's name as an invective. Religious terminology often has cultural meaning to people that don't necessarily believe.

Now, that doesn't mean that certain terrorists don't act in the name of what they believe God to be, but it also doesn't follow that invoking a deity makes one religious.

mattyrm wrote: ultimately they do what they do BECAUSE of their Religion surely?

Are you saying Muslims are suicide bomb terrorists?

KK ive been here ages, you KNOW what im saying and its not even remotely unreasonable, clearly most Muslims arent terrorists. 99.99% of them arent, but what im saying is that there is a clear, obvious and logical pathway leading from devout Religious belief that can lead to someone carrying out terrorist attacks. Im not even singling out Muslims.

The fact that someone is a terrorist and also happens to be a Muslim is not incidental, as it can give them a clear and obvious motive, plus the courage to carry it out, and the permission from what they percieve to be a higher authority. Its a very obvious one with regards to suicide attacks as well.

Ask yourself this, has any Muslim ever blown himself up and secretly been agnostic?

The Tamil Tigers aren't muslim.

The Japanese aren't muslim.

Both of them have done suicide attacks.

Why should muslims be singled out as a suicide bomb threat because of their religion?

Why is being a muslim a motive to commit terrorism?

The IRA aren't muslim.

Jews aren't muslim.

Both of them have done terrorism.

What is it specifically that makes muslims, because of their religion, peculiarly inclined to commit terrorism by the means of suicide bombs? Is it a widespread factor?

Wrexasaur wrote:
What problems? I have made entirely clear that this is a very complicated issue that takes time to understand. You don't pick up a paper and 'just get it'. You reference multiple sources of information. This can get messy, but it is a whole lot more accurate than what you are relying on. You have arrived at a conclusion that I am not even sure I understand.

You should have started trying to understand it long ago, then you might have realised more by now. I didnt puck up a paper and 'just get it' either.

I also references multiple sources, multiple attacks, multiple cases of what various Islamic militant sources have said openly. What I haven't given you are percentages, I don't think we can reliably find any.

Take the datas pasted above.

Does it tell you how many Islamic militants there are in the UK? No.
Does it tell you what percentage of Moselms are redicalised? No.

These were the very questions you were asking me for data on. If and I mean if, the data is reliable it only shows arrests and convictions, that tells you very little really. Arrests can include a number of innocent people, convictions only provide some detail on those for whome connexions were proven, and that will only be a fraction of whats out there. How big a fraction is also unknown.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I assume that you believe that Islam is in part responsible for many of the extremist attacks that we have seen. I disagree because I think your premise makes no sense. Islam isn't responsible, but it is because you consider it to be so (?).

Ok. What part of [inset name here] bombings caused by Islamic militants makes no sense to you?

What extras proof do you require before its ok to say 9/11 was caused my Islamic fundamentalists.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I don't need to understand all of the history behind all of this to understand that extremist fundamentalists do not represent the largest part of Islam. With your logic I can easily blame any religion for any actions any of their members would take. I won't do that because it is nonsensical.

I haven't done either, you have a comprehension failure here, and not due to any lack of clarity on my part.
If you read above I used words like 'Islamic militant' and 'Islamic fundamentalist'. I have been very careful to point this out and highlight this carefully on pretty much every time I have used the word Islamic or Moslem in relation to terror, I also called fundamentalists a minority as and when needed.
My logic is reasonable. You dont agree with it because you constantly misrepresent it, I think you are confused.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Extremist fundamentalism is a threat no matter where it comes from, and it certainly doesn't matter that the larger media is choosing to focus on Islamism when it comes to that subject.

Agreed here. The focus is usually on Islam because Islamic fundamentalists are commiting most of the atrocities.
I also on other threads took a dim view on other extremist violence, in particular the violent racism perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinians. the fact that Palestinians are predominantly Moslem has not prevented me from critiquing heavily actions against them.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I do not believe that anyone has been trolling you in this thread, and in my opinion Dogma has been relatively clear about where he disagrees with you.

Its been clear that he disagrees, but he ignored my commentary and picks on a single word or phrase, misrepresented it very heavily to imply I said something I did not, which you have also done a lot here. Thus basing his critique on something other than what I said.
It didnt help when I was able to prove he had misrepresented my posts that he admitted he hadnt read them, and saw no reason to do so out of petty hatred. To go out of the way to make argument while refusing to read what he critiques let alone mis-read is just childish. Posting replies at that point is futile.

Anyone who says 'he said this and I disagree', this being something clearly illogical but not what I wrote, only give themselves an illusion of validity. Ilusions can be powerful though possibly this is why you are confused too. It is also possibly why Matty says he agrees with him, and with you. Anyway enough about dogma, from his behaviour he plainly isnt here to actually help the discussion.

On this note I find it odd what Matty wrote saying he agreed with your points of view when your principle principle points of view has been that there is inadequate proof of a danger of Islamic fundamentalism. Correct me if I got this wrong, but I can quote enough of your posts that will make it fairly clear this is what you have been saying. In any case this is categorically different to what Matty has been saying quite consitently. Perhaps he just doesnt want to be seen agreeing with a Christian too often, he alone can tell us.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Your answer so far is to suggest that no amount of statistics is good enough, but if you double source things become more reliable (?).

You can only come to that conclusion if you wont read the thread properly.

how can I possibly be taken to have said 'no amount of statistics is good enough'. Really I gave lengthy examples of the opposidte. I see the value of statistics which why, to reiterate, I gave examples of how useful statistics are. You might recall I mentioned stock control above. I was intending to mention it just once, but the point has not been grasped: Stock control data is controled and this reliable, so much that the results can be applied automatically though a program generating stock orders. By comparing this with the other examples given you see that as one gets further away from a full data set, statistical data becomes less and less reliable.

The data you and I can collect on Islamic fundamentalism is very limited indeed, and we cannot double source it.

Double sourcing is little to do with collecting more data, and a lot to do with corroborating existing data. While what is happening to combat current terror campaigns is classified the conceopts of hw to run an intelligence agency are in the puiblic domain, there are lots of books on the subject.

The big problem you are facing is that terrorists, even if they are not suicuide bombers are often one use items. Partly this is because of statistical methods. Terrorists can generate a pattern that can be detected by their actions, so if a terrorist only does suspicious things once no pattern is created, its the same as an innocent stumbling aroundf doing the same thing, whatever it is. So if the terrorists themselves are trying to avouid actions that will cause a statistical pattern, either by using fresh terrorists or going into deep hiding, and the data the intelligence services do have is precious and very highly classified it becomes very difficult for even the agencies involved to detect patterns, and all but impossible for those on the outside.

In the million to one chance (sic) you did come across genuine intelligence data that piqued your thirst for reliable statistics of what is going on, expect some people to come and ask where you got it.

Anyway back to double sourcing. I mentioned how most staistics are invidiual counts, the counts often have as single source, so even what data you have you dont know if its true. Double sourcing is usually not a seperate count but a seperate witness to the same count. So double sourcing is still one count of information, but its a better count of information.

Doouble sourcing enters the pres from time to time, the lack of double sourcing was the problem behind the 'dodgy dossier'.

Just to muddy the waters further, what if double sourcing is not forthcoming? Terror groups being very fertive may not generate double sourced data for you, only single sources and thus unreliable data. Correlating data that is almost entirely made up of isolated 'maybes' is rather different than your street marketing data, you dont get many or possibly even any clear data points. You can use statistical analysis to determine how many people would like a product from a survey, because x people like one product and y another. An efficient opponent will not provide enough coherent data to make an analytical model from.

Terrorists are evil but not necessarily stupid, if they were Bin Laden would have been found long ago.

Wrexasaur wrote:
What about open source? Is that more or less reliable? How is it that quantitative data showing what I consider to be a flooded justice system invalid? Those are hard numbers, and they illustrate what is quite possibly the implementation of ineffective tools to deal with terrorism. People that have no business being charged with terrorism are charged because officers feel that 'better safe than sorry' applies to every situation one can imagine. When you flood a justice system with nonsense it will get clogged with that nonsense.

Not with you on this one. To avoid hypocrasy, rather than assume I understand you I will ask you to clarify what you are saying.

Wrexasaur wrote:
At this point I am not sure if you are saying that statistics are useless, or that statistics need to be carefully understood in order to see their full value.

The latter is closer, but not quite what I am saying.

Wrexasaur wrote:
You won't see the world through a crystal ball, but I can guarantee that with a basic understanding of what statistics are, and how they work, you can arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Indeed. However even with the most reliable data sets there are still issues.

Wrexasaur wrote:
You cross reference different sources and it takes fething time. You need to invest that elbow grease to get anything out of it.

Also very true. Returning to the stock control example, this near perfect statistical model accounts for sales to generate stock in orders. It does not account for theft or breakage. So even fully automated stock order systems allow for a manual input. As the datas set becaome less and less reliable more and more human input is needed. eventually statistical datas becomes so thin it becaomes little more than as rough guide to an educated guess, or worse something to discard and be replaced by personal expereince. Much of the crime and military intel is handled this way.

Let us talk about crime here as its easier, far easier to get a handle on. Idf a crime is comitted the first thing police do is check ther intelligence data, statistically. Previous convictions/arrests can often lead police straight to a repeat offender. If the offender has a previous unrrlated record they can be shortlisted for questioing, but then more policework is rwequired to fit the suspect to the crime, if that is exhausted and the perpetrator is known to be fresh then your statistics have failed you. Its time to hunt the perpetrator down by hand. Because of the repeat habits of criminals statistics is very useful and shortens the work.

However a competent terror organisation like the IRA wouldnt give you that much information. The Provos towards the end of the Troubles were using terrorists on a strict one use only basis. This meant they were very difficult to spot or catch.

Now you arent looking to catch terrorists, just count them, but the same problem still occurs, a lack of a coherent dataset means that statistical data is very vague, even amongst those who are supposed to have it. Outsiders, not a prayer.

Wrexasaur wrote:
It would be nice if data was better formatted, but if you looked around you might even find sources that amalgamate data from different agencies. You could be the person that combines that information, and if you wanted you could probably work out a way to automatically combine that information. It wouldn't be easy, and you would need to know what you are doing, but yes, it is possible to get a clearer picture of the world than you are offering, through the use of statistics.

While the sinsides of intelligence agencies are closed to us, there are plenty of clues to show this is happening. Many press reports talk of arrests made because of warnings from one foreign government or another. intelligence agencies do share data. How much, how timely and to whome and in return for what are all deeply political questions.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Avoid sources that have a bad reputation, or take that into account when you look at their information. We are looking at an issue that covers the entire globe and involves more than half of it's population if not more. One side did this and the other did that is not a complete view into what is going on here. It is complicated and this subject DESERVES serious study.

Very much so. It does deserve and demands serious study, but by intelligence agencies. Perhaps this is a career path for you, perhaps not.

Not specifically Muslims, Religious believers in general, and you argued for my point there considering nearly everyone you named had religious belief as a one of their motives. Its divisive in general. I specifically said i wasnt just targetting Muslims.

In short peoples faith can make them believe they are doing a righteous thing, they believe they will be rewarded for it, they believe that God wants them to do it, there are many many reasons.

The point is that it is not incidental, religious belief can give you a motive that you might not otherwise have had.

mattyrm wrote:Im not taking Orlanths side here as I fear he is arguing against Islam mainly because he is a devout Christian and as you know I have no time for those guys either!

This is a most unfair comment. The fact that I am a Christian doesnt affect my distain for terrorism, in fact I follow a different path from many Christians.

I have agreed with you over the threat of Islamic terror, I have also disagreed with you over Israeli military policy and treatment of Palestinians. I am anti-oppression not specifically anti-Moslem. Islamic terror has its roots in the desire to oppress us by enforcing Islam upon us, whether or not this goal is workable doesnt mean it is not a general goal of Islamic terrorism in the west.

I have seen a broad range of political opinions from Christians, some very peacenik, some 'equality and diversity' PC dogmatised *cough* CoE *cough*, others have an alarming Zionist tendency: hating all Arabs and supporting Israel blindly.

I dont fit into any of those patterns, my opinions on these issues are largely divorced from my faith. I try to keep my politics secular, I think it is healthier. Many Christians also think the same, they might draw different conclusions but their politicas and faith are not mixed. The only time my religion and politics meet is when the church gets bashed, however this does happen a lot of late. New Labour had it in for the churches and passed a lot of unfair laws that were enforced tightly against Christians but very loosely with other faiths.

There is so much hate towards Islam that it is just sickening.

mattyrm wrote:Not specifically Muslims, Religious believers in general, and you argued for my point there considering nearly everyone you named had religious belief as a one of their motives. Its divisive in general. I specifically said i wasnt just targetting Muslims.

Well, the Tamils are the most prolific suicide terrorists in the world, and they are primarily motivated by nationalism.

mattyrm wrote:
In short peoples faith can make them believe they are doing a righteous thing, they believe they will be rewarded for it, they believe that God wants them to do it, there are many many reasons.

The point is that it is not incidental, religious belief can give you a motive that you might not otherwise have had.

So can any belief. It isn't as though you are intrinsically British, for example. Yet that Britishness gives you certain motives that you wouldn't have without that nationality.

True enough Dogma, so can any belief, but an extra divide is one we can do without, especially one so powerful.

Anyway, ill let you lot get back to arguing, ive had this out enough times already.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Tamil Tigers aren't muslim.
The Japanese aren't muslim.
Both of them have done suicide attacks.
Why should muslims be singled out as a suicide bomb threat because of their religion?

Not so much singled out as where our focus is. The Tamils arent after us. WEere we living in Sri Lanka the balance of focus would be the opposite.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why is being a muslim a motive to commit terrorism?
The IRA aren't muslim.
Jews aren't muslim.
Both of them have done terrorism.
What is it specifically that makes muslims, because of their religion, peculiarly inclined to commit terrorism by the means of suicide bombs? Is it a widespread factor?

Ther IRA were not motivated to perform suicide attacks, they were highly competent but not inclined to kill themselves. Someone who doesnt care if he dies, or worse prefers it is very difficult to stop. We are lucky in that the average nut who commits a suicide bombing is either isolated or badly trained. The masterminds of Islamic terror are not wasted that way.

Jewish terrorism can be very viscious due to Jewish fundamentalism. The passages used to support terror acts, mostly in the boom of Deuteronomy dehumanise non Jews and instil a call to cleanse the holy land with violence. Fortunately this also means Jewish terrorism has a narrow focus. It exists today in the form of extremist settlers, some of which shoot at Palestinians over borders. To their credit the IDF try to crack down on this, but with marked different intensity to responses to shots fired the other way. Some Israelis I know consider extremist settlers a real problem, and due to the inability to employ usuasl methods of dealing with threats one of the trickier threats to handle. These extremists will also target Jews if they are enouygh of a threat to their goals. The assassination of Rabin is a case in point.

Islamic terrorism has the same problems with the fervour of Jewish terrorism, but without any real cut off. if you are not a threat to the greater Israel Jewish terrorists arent interested in you. Howeeverr an Islamic terrorist can considerr just about anyone a target.
The reason is because of the particularly unpleasant teachings that can be interpreted from Islams holy works. Jihad is a real part of Islam, and many Moslems interpret that to mean literal earthly conflict. the rewards for martyrs are also in the Koran, including the promise of 72 virgins. More importantly for us is the promise that those Infidel killed by a matryr in his martyrdom become the servants of the matryr in paradise. This means two things, taker as many people as you can with you, to get a better reward in heaven, also killing Infidel this way is a blessing because at least the Infidel get into heaven. Better to enter heaven as a servant than to enter hell. This is a conscience salve teaching. I dont think concern for victims souls is likely not a serious concern of suicide bombers, in fact one of the 9/11 bombers warned people he was friendly with at flight school not to fly on the day of the attack, so getting people into heaven as servants is not a priority.
There is also a consciencve salve teaching regarding Moslems killeed during attacks. i dont know the teaching for sure but IIRC Moslems who die asa result of somone elses martyrdom get a share of the rewards. this might not be a Koranic teaching as much as a dogma taught to help motivate bombers. In any event many suicide bombers show little problemwith attacking even if more Moslems die than infidel. The marketplace bombings in Iraq are a good example, they would kill many local Iraqis for every western soldier.
It may possibly be the case that the religion is no longer important, just the fighting. With a lower and lower standard set for human life of any creed. This should not be suprising as all the above doctrines are an appalling travesty to many Moslems.

Orlanth wrote:Thankyou Frazzie, this is the very point. Though there is a lot of anti-Islamic feeling in Switzerland (understandable as its the nearest thing they have had to a genuine threat since the 15th century), however the minaret ban was not motivated by racism.
I didnt know there were as few as four minarets in Switzxerland, but then the statistics arent actually necessary or relevant to the value of the arguments. To those living nearby who remember their town before a minaret one minaret is too many. The only guaranteed way to securing their heritage in this manner is a minaret ban. Thus moslems must seek and exception to the ban rather in a situatiion if and where the local population welcomes a minaret, rather than have the 'right' to be build a minaret as the default.

You're right that the ban wasn't motivated by racism. It's more xenopophobia, fear of the alien culture. Putting a ban on minarets is a way of placing a control on that thing, alleviating that fear.

It isn't driven by any desire to keep the towns of Switzerland within a certain aesthetic - despite the postcards Switzerland is a fugly place - outside of the tourist spots the place is just concrete blocks. Nor are the presence of a four minarets any kind of threat to heritage - what does that even mean? How do I have less heritage because there's a minaret over the road?

No, when a party that is dedicated to getting minorities to leave the country submits a referendum targetting a religious minority, in a country famed for it's xenophobia, and that referendum passes, it is fairly silly to pretend that is passed because people thought four minarets were a threat to the aesthetics of a whole country.

Orlanth wrote:Very much so. It does deserve and demands serious study, but by intelligence agencies.

Then there is no reason for us to have this conversation. Good times.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/foreign-people-get-out-sign-on-mosque-as-car-torched-in-parking-lot

'Foreign people GET OUT' sign on mosque as car torched in parking lot
Thursday 21st October, 04:20 PM JST

FUKUI —
A car parked in front of a mosque in Fukui City was torched early Wednesday in what police believe is an arson case, and a sign saying, ‘‘Foreign people GET OUT’’ was posted at the two-story building, police said Thursday.

Police also said that a flag at an Indian restaurant about 1.5 kilometers from the building was set on fire and a similar sign posted in September, they said.

The car, a Malaysian student’s station wagon, was set on fire at around 1:15 a.m. in the mosque’s parking lot, but no one was injured, according to police.

The mosque in the capital of Fukui Prefecture can accommodate up to 80 people to attend services, according to its website.

Shocking and saddening.

Christian churches and Buddhist temples have also been attacked on occasion, no doubt by different groups.

Most Japanese people aren't much concerned about religion, perhaps this was a racially motivated attack.

It seems an idiot made some idiotic statements.

I have yet to see a Muslim walking around saying "heil mein Allah"

I find it interesting nonetheless since people in the United Sates have been likening Islam to all sorts of nasty things for years.