Herochat

a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2017, 04:01:18 PM »
Interestingly enough one of the commenter's put this on it; don't know if legite but here you go:

"Faith.....Most of those 89 terrorist attacks were minor things.   They count shit like vandalism by eco-terror and animal rights groups as terror.      Nobody cares about THAT shit.   What we care about is violent attacks on people,   particularly ones with fatalities.     Of the 145 deaths in the US due to terror attacks since 911,   95 were from Muslims.   That comes out to 66% !!!   66% of the terror deaths in the US since 911 (if we want to convenienlty do the muslims a favor and skip over the 3000 dead from that little happening)   done by less than 1% of the US population!    That should be a very,  very embarrassing number for Muslims and the Young Turks,  who downplay Islamic terror every chance they get.   The Young Turks are trying to muddy the waters by mixing in minor attacks against property with the ones that leave dead bodies."

"Ahhhh no, you don't understand the statistics. The subset of Muslims being reported about (44% of the total terrorism coverage by the media) that are foreign-born Muslim were was 32%. There were no conclusions as to whether or not those Muslims that make up the current population of the united states were responsible. I suggest you go read the study before making false conclusions."

"There were more deaths in western countries from the period 2006 to 2014 that were Islam related compared to all other religions and supremacist groups combined. Global Terrorism Index 2015 pg 57"


So if I'm getting this right; presuming these are accurate and not just trash-information, and of course youtube commenters are always the best source of info......66% of all terrorists acts are committed by muslim's.  32% of all terrorists acts are committed by foreign-born muslims, Muslims' committed more terrorists acts from 200-6-2014 combined.  And the Young Turk's purposefully conflated things like "vandalism and property damage" kind of crimes to try and up the numbers of non-muslim Terrorism to try and make the Muslim-Terrorists look better.


g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2017, 04:02:46 PM »
How does it compare to reports on Anglo-Terrorists attacks?

I mean; if your 5000% over-represented for terrorists attacks......

Or to put it this way; as compared to the amount of terrorists attacks they make, are they 13x over-represented for that?

i dont know did you look at the clip. I ask because they did break it down into demographics

because if mean white dudes. From the attacks they actully make a good chunk of the attacks if you include shit like attacking abortions clincs and stuff. Least according to the study in that clip


Dont know if mass shootings included in that. if that consider a terroist attack or just being a crazy asshole


The Young Turks needs to learn the concept of proportionality.

If Muslims make up about 1% of the US adult population, and are committing approximately 13% of terror attacks... That's noteworthy.

It might actually be worse than that; it seemed like that was the statistic for "foreign-born" muslim terrorists.

So maybe better for native born but absolutely poor showing for them considering that I working under the assumption most muslims in the US are born here.

No it was for BOTH

native, 12 percent

Foreign born is 5 percent

Your right; the 1 in 3 million was "all" terrorist attacks from foreign-born terrorists. 

So wait; 17 percent of terrorist attacks are muslim or out of every 12 attacks 5 will be foreign born?

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2017, 04:04:33 PM »
So the number that get's thrown around a lot is that Muslims' are 5000x percent over-represented but they are really only 1300x percent over-represented?

therock

  • ********
  • 7575
  • +18/-63
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2017, 04:12:41 PM »
it turns out all the shit dems and obama got for being weak on terroism and immigratio...they actully been pretty good

Terriost attack in generaly no matter the race doest happen that often

foreign mulsims attack is pretty fucking low.
Are vetting process seem to be good. Some say since it takes 1 to 2 years to get in here through the refuging process the vetting can be descibe to as EXTREME

Net immigration went down under him
Deportions went UP

He  focused the deportian on people with violent crime. Which the plan trump now saying he going to do. So he doing obamas plan

if you want to bomb ISIS...he bomb them a lot. Some would describe as BOMBING THE SHIT out of them


If you complain about the dems and obama..it not that they to soft..it these ideas basicly republican like. But since for some reason the right cant attack them on that..they got to pretend he been liberal about it.

And again not like the news dont report on it when attacks happen. it just that it doesnt happen as often as people think. So sometime days it simply nothing to report.  Which make me think they no amount of reportinf that would be enough

they could have the MUSLIM CRIME HOUR, every day and people be like "Why only an hour dedicated to it"



So the number that get's thrown around a lot is that Muslims' are 5000x percent over-represented but they are really only 1300x percent over-represented?

I dont know if they OVER represented. But they sure as shit not UNDER represented. It not like there a liberal agenda not to report on this like that big orange head man says


Interestingly enough one of the commenter's put this on it; don't know if legite but here you go:

"Faith.....Most of those 89 terrorist attacks were minor things.   They count shit like vandalism by eco-terror and animal rights groups as terror.      Nobody cares about THAT shit.   What we care about is violent attacks on people,   particularly ones with fatalities.     Of the 145 deaths in the US due to terror attacks since 911,   95 were from Muslims.   That comes out to 66% !!!   66% of the terror deaths in the US since 911 (if we want to convenienlty do the muslims a favor and skip over the 3000 dead from that little happening)   done by less than 1% of the US population!    That should be a very,  very embarrassing number for Muslims and the Young Turks,  who downplay Islamic terror every chance they get.   The Young Turks are trying to muddy the waters by mixing in minor attacks against property with the ones that leave dead bodies."

"Ahhhh no, you don't understand the statistics. The subset of Muslims being reported about (44% of the total terrorism coverage by the media) that are foreign-born Muslim were was 32%. There were no conclusions as to whether or not those Muslims that make up the current population of the united states were responsible. I suggest you go read the study before making false conclusions."

"There were more deaths in western countries from the period 2006 to 2014 that were Islam related compared to all other religions and supremacist groups combined. Global Terrorism Index 2015 pg 57"


So if I'm getting this right; presuming these are accurate and not just trash-information, and of course youtube commenters are always the best source of info......66% of all terrorists acts are committed by muslim's.  32% of all terrorists acts are committed by foreign-born muslims, Muslims' committed more terrorists acts from 200-6-2014 combined.  And the Young Turk's purposefully conflated things like "vandalism and property damage" kind of crimes to try and up the numbers of non-muslim Terrorism to try and make the Muslim-Terrorists look better.



Well i am not sure i can trust that youtube commenter on the statsitc

because if you were to scroll down i bet you get

"Why arent you guys talking about pizzagate"

So if they see the statics I would have to see that. But note that would work for muslim attacker as well. Simply vandalis..or ones that failed and resulted in no deaths

How does it compare to reports on Anglo-Terrorists attacks?

I mean; if your 5000% over-represented for terrorists attacks......

Or to put it this way; as compared to the amount of terrorists attacks they make, are they 13x over-represented for that?

i dont know did you look at the clip. I ask because they did break it down into demographics

because if mean white dudes. From the attacks they actully make a good chunk of the attacks if you include shit like attacking abortions clincs and stuff. Least according to the study in that clip


Dont know if mass shootings included in that. if that consider a terroist attack or just being a crazy asshole


The Young Turks needs to learn the concept of proportionality.

If Muslims make up about 1% of the US adult population, and are committing approximately 13% of terror attacks... That's noteworthy.

It might actually be worse than that; it seemed like that was the statistic for "foreign-born" muslim terrorists.

So maybe better for native born but absolutely poor showing for them considering that I working under the assumption most muslims in the US are born here.

No it was for BOTH

native, 12 percent

Foreign born is 5 percent

Your right; the 1 in 3 million was "all" terrorist attacks from foreign-born terrorists. 

So wait; 17 percent of terrorist attacks are muslim or out of every 12 attacks 5 will be foreign born?

i ASSUME their seperated

Snake-eyes

  • *****
  • 1905
  • +5/-6
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2017, 04:20:11 PM »
If you don't understand his point, why don't you ask him. what is the point of asking a 3rd person to explain what he meant?

No i understand the point. Your applying that I didnt read his point or missing it. Dont think I am. What is it YOU think I am missing.

if your answer is another non answer, I am just going to ignore you after

my point in case YOUR missing it

is the argument that people not reporting on terorrist..or under reporting mulsims terrorist..kind of bullshit according to the statistics

And when I say there a low numbers of attacks by muslims. I mean out of the millions its a couple of dudes in the past years. I mean not enough for a to create a good football team.  And for foreign born..not enopugh for even a starting line up

But even if one to say that a high percentage for their population and thus worthy of news to be reported on. TURNS ON..yes they are reporting on them...a LOT. They good a massive share of the new coverage. Namely considering the pluaraity of the attacks

Thus making the idea they dont report on it (due to some SJW..CUCKNESS) is pure bs. Thats the point of the link.

What part of I'm not about to explain someone else's point to you, do you not understand?

If you want to verify that you understood his point, ask him.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2017, 04:34:06 PM »
Of course considering how almost "paranoid" you might say we can be about terrorist attacks, especially involving Muslim or Middle-Eastern Individuals.....well do we really want to be "less" paranoid about attacks from that direction?

Would it stay that low or sky-rocket up?

Looking at the media again; of the reported stories about terrorism, 32% of the 44% were foreign-born?

So Native Born's Muslim's are actually about accurately reported on then?

Okay; looking it up 61 percent of Muslims are immigrants......so the native Born muslims are actually a bit more likely to be terrorists than the foreign one's when you consider their percentage of the population.  So then in comparison to how many terrorist acts they commit, they might be under-reported.  That being said; immigrant muslims' are of a general higher education level than native Muslims'.

Also; you ever notice it's the next generation, the native-born that are always the more violent one's?  What's with the US and it's love of violence?

Also considering how many Muslims' are middle-eastern, what are the races reported on?  Does this mean, white, black and asian muslim's get it easier than Arabs?

I also wonder in the commentators are right about them including relatively "low level" attacks so as to make Muslim terrorists look better.

They do seem to be vague about describing the "attacks" of non-Muslim terrorists and even go into the definition right after to say that they fit into it, while not saying what they were in the first places. 

They mention we basically ignore 95% of the problem when it comes to death's in america, basically gun deaths'.

g-train

  • ********
  • 10716
  • +1/-9
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2017, 04:44:43 PM »
According to "Jihad-Watch".....https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/77-of-terror-plots-are-motivated-by-islamic-jihad-doctrine

That back as of 2013 77 percent of all US terrorist attacks were motivated by Islam.


therock

  • ********
  • 7575
  • +18/-63
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2017, 05:19:48 PM »
Of course considering how almost "paranoid" you might say we can be about terrorist attacks, especially involving Muslim or Middle-Eastern Individuals.....well do we really want to be "less" paranoid about attacks from that direction?

Would it stay that low or sky-rocket up?

Looking at the media again; of the reported stories about terrorism, 32% of the 44% were foreign-born?

So Native Born's Muslim's are actually about accurately reported on then?

Okay; looking it up 61 percent of Muslims are immigrants......so the native Born muslims are actually a bit more likely to be terrorists than the foreign one's when you consider their percentage of the population.  So then in comparison to how many terrorist acts they commit, they might be under-reported.  That being said; immigrant muslims' are of a general higher education level than native Muslims'.

Also; you ever notice it's the next generation, the native-born that are always the more violent one's?  What's with the US and it's love of violence?

Also considering how many Muslims' are middle-eastern, what are the races reported on?  Does this mean, white, black and asian muslim's get it easier than Arabs?

I also wonder in the commentators are right about them including relatively "low level" attacks so as to make Muslim terrorists look better.

They do seem to be vague about describing the "attacks" of non-Muslim terrorists and even go into the definition right after to say that they fit into it, while not saying what they were in the first places. 

They mention we basically ignore 95% of the problem when it comes to death's in america, basically gun deaths'.


Less paranoid makes you able to attack the areas that actully a danger. Like the big complain about the banned is they ignore country that ACTULLY attack us

becuase we are butt buddies with Saudia arabia. The countries that were banned. As you say they ignore a big issue with guns death. Part of the reasons voters go but..but that AFFECT ME!!!!.  Here the thing this other shit could affect other people as well. Most invasion in privacy was done to combabt muslim terroist. But they ended up bugging all of us because that door was open

people complain about Americans having Drones attacking people. But you OPEN the door for that once we increase the term of enmy combatants to fuck with muslim countries. lot of the patriot act, taking away due process was to fuck with mulsims..but that now can fuck with everyone

Also not saying the media is wrong. Saying the idea media UNDER reports this..kind of bullshit. The whole idea they dont report on it because their affraid people will get triggered..is kind of bullshit. If it a muslim attacker it far more likely to get reported and more attention will be put to it

None of it undereproters. These from crime statistic. Reason why foreign born muslim commit less crimes is there escaping that shit a lot of them. And our vetting process actully pretty good. It takes a good amount of time to get int there. So the idea their coming over the wall like white walkers not true


and even the ones who do you talking about a COUPLE of guys.
immigration is down. People LEAVING our country


According to "Jihad-Watch".....https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/77-of-terror-plots-are-motivated-by-islamic-jihad-doctrine

That back as of 2013 77 percent of all US terrorist attacks were motivated by Islam.



Well if JIHAND WATCH says it...it much be true

But i am one to never judge a book by its cover. read the site. Doesnt really go into where they getting their figures from, in fact the info they decribe as conflicting data, was an CNN artcile that says the threat was overblown.  The other article says it not but their talking about attacking to the millitart OVERSEAS and abroad on millitary familes..and then merging them together.

Rufio

  • ***
  • 654
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2017, 07:08:58 PM »
The number of terrorist incidents that had a jihadist motive since 1990 appears to be way higher than 13%, closer to 40-50%:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

And that includes some property destruction incidents. What is the timeframe for the 13% number? It would make sense if it was speaking of terrorism from the founding of the US to the present, or if the number were diluted with very minor property destruction.

therock

  • ********
  • 7575
  • +18/-63
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2017, 07:34:48 PM »
The number of terrorist incidents that had a jihadist motive since 1990 appears to be way higher than 13%, closer to 40-50%:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

And that includes some property destruction incidents. What is the timeframe for the 13% number? It would make sense if it was speaking of terrorism from the founding of the US to the present, or if the number were diluted with very minor property destruction.

from 2011 to 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/13/yes-the-media-do-underreport-some-terrorist-attacks-just-not-the-ones-most-people-think-of/?utm_term=.80f9b5f74624

According to the global terroisim Database

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Dlbiininja

  • ******
  • 2667
  • +15/-8298
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2017, 09:09:04 PM »
That's always been one of my issues with per capita type comparisons vs pure number comparisons.  The ratio makes it look worse than it is while ignoring the attacks comprised of the majority.  It's a disproportionate lie in reality. 
My negative Karma correlates to the amount of butthurt I've caused you! 
blowmeuptom.com/   https://www.facebook.com/tomleykisshow/
http://garyanddino.com/ 

therock

  • ********
  • 7575
  • +18/-63
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2017, 09:20:23 PM »
That's always been one of my issues with per capita type comparisons vs pure number comparisons.  The ratio makes it look worse than it is while ignoring the attacks comprised of the majority.  It's a disproportionate lie in reality.


I think even per captain the amount of media paid attnetion to it either right where it should be or overdone when you just talking about terroist. So least the claim their not reporting enough on muslim attaclks seem to be false when you actully look at the idea they do spend a lot of amount on it

And where we put our resouces. There arent that many terroist attacks as people make it seem, even all races aside. Then add that with number of muslim attacks..you talking about a very..very small amount of people.  When you add up all the other stuff that involve people to get murdered or kiled that we can do stuff to fix , that where ignoring it seem to be overboard

Rufio

  • ***
  • 654
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2017, 09:35:21 PM »
The number of terrorist incidents that had a jihadist motive since 1990 appears to be way higher than 13%, closer to 40-50%:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

And that includes some property destruction incidents. What is the timeframe for the 13% number? It would make sense if it was speaking of terrorism from the founding of the US to the present, or if the number were diluted with very minor property destruction.

from 2011 to 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/13/yes-the-media-do-underreport-some-terrorist-attacks-just-not-the-ones-most-people-think-of/?utm_term=.80f9b5f74624

According to the global terroisim Database

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

That appears to be an arbitrary time period, which makes me suspicious of why it was chosen. It appears that the years 2011-2012 were much slower years for terrorism, while 2010 and 2016 had quite a few terrorist incidents:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

I count over 20 jihadism-related incidents in 2010-2016.  The number of total injuries and deaths in jihadism-related attacks is also very disproportionate. 

The GTD database doesn't summarize the data in the way the Washington Post article does.  I'm suspicious of the WaPo journalist's methodology. For example, the GTD database includes incidents where: (1) it was purely an attack on property, (2) the motive of the assailant is unknown, and (3) the GTD researchers aren't sure whether it was a religiously or politically motivates attack.

I don't have the time to go through all 80+ examples, but I suspect that the WaPo journalist is skewing the numbers by: (1) characterizing attacks for which the motive hasn't become clear as "non-Muslim" attacks (when the reality is we don't have good evidence one way or the other), (2) including attacks where it isn't clearly "terrorism" (i.e. it isn't clearly that it's ideologically motivated), and (3) including attacks aimed only at property.
 

therock

  • ********
  • 7575
  • +18/-63
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2017, 11:21:57 PM »
The number of terrorist incidents that had a jihadist motive since 1990 appears to be way higher than 13%, closer to 40-50%:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

And that includes some property destruction incidents. What is the timeframe for the 13% number? It would make sense if it was speaking of terrorism from the founding of the US to the present, or if the number were diluted with very minor property destruction.

from 2011 to 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/13/yes-the-media-do-underreport-some-terrorist-attacks-just-not-the-ones-most-people-think-of/?utm_term=.80f9b5f74624

According to the global terroisim Database

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

That appears to be an arbitrary time period, which makes me suspicious of why it was chosen. It appears that the years 2011-2012 were much slower years for terrorism, while 2010 and 2016 had quite a few terrorist incidents:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

I count over 20 jihadism-related incidents in 2010-2016.  The number of total injuries and deaths in jihadism-related attacks is also very disproportionate. 

The GTD database doesn't summarize the data in the way the Washington Post article does.  I'm suspicious of the WaPo journalist's methodology. For example, the GTD database includes incidents where: (1) it was purely an attack on property, (2) the motive of the assailant is unknown, and (3) the GTD researchers aren't sure whether it was a religiously or politically motivates attack.

I don't have the time to go through all 80+ examples, but I suspect that the WaPo journalist is skewing the numbers by: (1) characterizing attacks for which the motive hasn't become clear as "non-Muslim" attacks (when the reality is we don't have good evidence one way or the other), (2) including attacks where it isn't clearly "terrorism" (i.e. it isn't clearly that it's ideologically motivated), and (3) including attacks aimed only at property.

Why wouldnt you include no 3

if your bombing a mosque, aborting clinic, jewish temple, goverment building  you attacking propety but still an terroist attack. Alsoe even if something politicaly motivated isnt that STILL  terroist attack. Maybe I getting a the defintion wrong. You could correct me on this

But I assume If I am against Trump. Then I rock into trump hotel with a Bomb strap to me and blow the place up..might not be doing it for relegious reason but wouldnt that still be terroist

isnt that why they the weathmen undgeround consider terrorist. Some of those guy still in hiding. They attack mostly property and was no relegious.   I mean honest question not trying to be slick here..but is that NOT consider terroism.

Rufio

  • ***
  • 654
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: a study on how the media reports terrorist attacks
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2017, 11:46:30 PM »
I wouldn't necessarily include attacks on property with a very low probability of injuring people.

For example, destroying doors at a factory farm or sabotaging oil fracking equipment would both be attacks on property. They might be classified as eco-terrorism or animal right terrorism.  But because they're not aimed at killing people, they aren't acts of "terrorism" as most people understand the word.

A politically motivated attack is terrorism, yes.  My point is, there are many minor physical attacks where the GTD database researchers don't know whether the attack was motivated by ideology, or they aren't sure which ideology.

 The WaPo people appear to be assuming that attacks in this category (a) are motivated by an ideology (not proven), and (b) that ideology is not based on the religion of Islam (not proven).


If there isn't enough evidence of what ideology--if any--motivated an attack, it's premature to call it terrorism.  Even if you think it is terrorism, it's premature to say that one ideology (jihadism) isn't the root cause.  Until there's good evidence that a different ideology motivated the attack, it shouldn't be counted as an example of "terrorism committed by non-Muslims."