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.

If thats what you were trying to do you miscalculated.

9/11
Fort Hood
attempted Times Square bombing
Texas drawing attacks
recruitment center attacks
San Bernardino attack
Florida attack

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Now if you had said the Klan/racists I'd agree, although their power has fallen away.

The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism in America since 9/11 .

Sauce

edit: clarity

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism since 9/11.

Sauce

Thats your definition. You're conflating neo nazis and the patriot movement. Might as well say "here's a list of alll the white people I disagree with" Thats not right, and doesn't make up the kill count of Islamoterrorists.

Now, if you compared the threat of Islamic terrorism to the cartels, gangs, or generic crime you'd be right. But we're not playing security theater because of fat white guys taking over a Portland ranger station (and a barrel of oil mysteriously "disappearing").

I'll further note those are terrorist incidents just in the US as a threat to US citizens.

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism in America since 9/11 .

Yeah, let's just ignore the most deadly terrorist attack against the United States in its history, because it's inconvenient for our statistics.

The argument doesn't matter anyway, because the initial assertion that Muslims have a trend of terrorism is false. Organisations based in violent, unstable countries have a trend of terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims are just normal people, and making the argument that they somehow trend to terrorism is exactly the pre-conceived bias I am talking about.

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism in America since 9/11 .

Yeah, let's not include the most deadly terrorist attack against the United States in its history, because it's inconvenient for our calculations.

I take it you didn't try the tasty sauce?

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism in America since 9/11 .

Yeah, let's not include the most deadly terrorist attack against the United States in its history, because it's inconvenient for our calculations.

I take it you didn't try the tasty sauce?

I don't get the joke.

Anyway, when you're bean-counting terrorist casualties, it's probably pretty darn important to include 9/11 in your count. Perhaps you were quite young then and it seems like some mythologized distant part of history, but it was very be real and only happened less than 16 years ago.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism since 9/11.

Sauce

Thats your definition. You're conflating neo nazis and the patriot movement. Might as well say "here's a list of alll the white people I disagree with" Thats not right, and doesn't make up the kill count of Islamoterrorists.

Now, if you compared the threat of Islamic terrorism to the cartels, gangs, or generic crime you'd be right. But we're not playing security theater because of fat white guys taking over a Portland ranger station (and a barrel of oil mysteriously "disappearing").

I'll further note those are terrorist incidents just in the US as a threat to US citizens.

It's not MY definition, it's used by the freakin' FBI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The "patriot movement" is a broad umbrella which includes, among others, far-right militas, doomsday cults, white power groups, and so-called Sovereign Citizens.

They are responsible for something like 70% of the violent extremism in America since 9/11 .

Yeah, let's not include the most deadly terrorist attack against the United States in its history, because it's inconvenient for our calculations.

I take it you didn't try the tasty sauce?

I don't get the joke.

Anyway, when you're bean-counting terrorist casualties, it's probably pretty darn important to include 9/11 in your count.

The article (linked under Sauce) elaborates on why 9/12 is the date used.

 feeder wrote:

The article (linked under Sauce) elaborates on why 9/12 is the date used.

OK...yeah I didn't see the link.

I reject 9/12 utterly. Terrorist attacks by Islamic organizations have been killing Americans since the origination of the PLO.

Again, these pail in comparison to common crime, and cartel/gang violence as a danger to US citizens in the US itself. If you make that argument I agree with you. of course, we're all forgetting the real menace...cats. This is probably straining into the ISIL thread territory so I will withdraw further discussion in this direction.

 jasper76 wrote:

I think a pertinent point is that present-day Christians don't follow this commandment, which was never aimed at them anyway, nor do present-day Jews, to whom the commandment was purportedly given in the story. These religions have evolved over centuries of time.

Furthermore, many (most?) Christians and Jews believe these stories and moral codes to be mytho-historical artifacts.

At the same time, a significant number of Christians discriminate against, and/or hate homosexuality/homosexuals because of the same book in the OT. . . Which is it? Are Christians supposed to follow the whole book, or only the parts that make them feel good?

 Frazzled wrote:
I reject 9/12 utterly. Terrorist attacks by Islamic organizations have been killing Americans since the origination of the PLO.

Again, these pail in comparison to common crime, and cartel/gang violence as a danger to US citizens in the US itself. If you make that argument I agree with you. of course, we're all forgetting the real menace...cats. This is probably straining into the ISIL thread territory so I will withdraw further discussion in this direction.

That's a good point. And your mention of this getting OT too.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

I think a pertinent point is that present-day Christians don't follow this commandment, which was never aimed at them anyway, nor do present-day Jews, to whom the commandment was purportedly given in the story. These religions have evolved over centuries of time.

Furthermore, many (most?) Christians and Jews believe these stories and moral codes to be mytho-historical artifacts.

At the same time, a significant number of Christians discriminate against, and/or hate homosexuality/homosexuals because of the same book in the OT. . . Which is it? Are Christians supposed to follow the whole book, or only the parts that make them feel good?

I don't think I'm in any particular position to tell Christians what they are supposed to believe about the Old Testament. I think the most reasonable thing to believe is that it's a collection of mytho-historical artifacts detailing what various authors/ groups of authors believed about God.

(Incidentally, it's not just the OT which condemns homosexuality. Paul's Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is also clearly condemning of homosexuality: Romans 1:22-28 (writing about the "irreligious and perverse spirit of men who...hinder the truth") "They claimed to be wise, but turned into fools instead; they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images representing mortal man, birds, beasts, and snakes. In consequence, God delivered them up in their lusts to unclean practices; they engaged in the mutual degradation of their bodies, these men who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator - blessed be he forever, amen! God therefore delivered them to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural acts for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received the penalty for their perversity. They did not see fit to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up to their own depraved sense to do what is unseemly.")

Since we haven't touched on the actual topic for ages, and this thread has a lot of quite reprehensible stuff getting posted in it, I'm going to call it here. Feel free to start a new thread when this bloke gets to the appeals court.