Re- Write the Bible ???

PostmodernProphet said:
You need to provide current ones to support your claims...
Or you could just admit your lie
Click to expand...

Well, here's the deal on that one. You accused me of lying. That means you can prove that I'm lying.

Why not have a go at it? Do you think I made up that 25-year study?

If I link the study, will you admit that you were just idiotically shooting from the hip, and know nothing on this topic? Let's have some parameters.
 
You used statistics that excluded current events......a deliberate distortion of facts is commonly known as a......fill in the blank, sucker.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
You used statistics that excluded current events......a deliberate distortion of facts is commonly known as a......fill in the blank, sucker.....
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....I cited the years of the main study I was referencing. Was that misleading to you somehow?

You shouldn't wade into stuff like this without knowing anything. It will leave you grasping at lame straws (like you were trying to above).
 
Thing1 said:
Hey, when you're losing, it's simple - just move the goalposts.

Shrewd.
Click to expand...

Losing what? You gave some dated terrorist data and I gave some current data which showed that 2014 [likely the most recent year they have good data on] was the worst year in the 21st century in terms of lethal terrorism.

The term for that is cherry-picking data. It's easy to get the impression that it matters to you who wins the Terrorist Award.

And, surprise-surprise, four Islamist groups top the list. In contrast, your out-dated source minimized the Islamist threat.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Losing what? You gave some dated terrorist data and I gave some current data which showed that 2014 [likely the most recent year they have good data on] was the worst year in the 21st century in terms of lethal terrorism.

The term for that is cherry-picking data. It's easy to get the impression that it matters to you who wins the Terrorist Award.

And, surprise-surprise, four Islamist groups top the list. In contrast, your out-dated source minimized the Islamist threat.
Click to expand...

Here are some more recent ones for you then:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

I mean, particularly in the U.S., you & yours don't seen nearly as concerned about the separatists & far-right groups, who - surprise-surprise - are responsible for many more attacks.

Why is that, Darth?
 
Thing1 said:
Here are some more recent ones for you then:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

I mean, particularly in the U.S., you & yours don't seen nearly as concerned about the separatists & far-right groups, who - surprise-surprise - are responsible for many more attacks.

Why is that, Darth?
Click to expand...

A flawed pro Muslim study. 1980- 2005 is relevant how? Lumping all crimes together and then comparing these to Muslim terrorism in a region is not legitimate comparables.
 
Thing1 said:
Here are some more recent ones for you then:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

I mean, particularly in the U.S., you & yours don't seen nearly as concerned about the separatists & far-right groups, who - surprise-surprise - are responsible for many more attacks.

Why is that, Darth?
Click to expand...

More cherry picking data.

The first link [NYT] started their count after 9/11 and attributed 26 deaths to Islamic terrorists. That's a common ploy. What good reason is there to exclude the nearly 3,000 deaths in 9/11? There isn't any, unless you're trying to prop up a narrative.

Think of it this way: suppose it were some sort of perverse contest between Islamic and non-Islamic terrorists. Excluding 9/11 so other guys got the prize is known as 'cheating' lol.

But it's a common ploy engaged in by the left. Also, the NYT piece is dated June of last year. The Orlando shooter, alone, killed 49 people---mostly gays, in June of this year. In other words, the death by jihadist count nearly doubled in one terrorist act.

Most rational people would deem the Islamic variety more dangerous than the non-Islamic variety. Moreso, when 9/11 is taken into account.

It's seems important to you that the reputation of Islam not be sullied by facts on the ground and the most current data.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
More cherry picking data.

The first link [NYT] started their count after 9/11 and attributed 26 deaths to Islamic terrorists. That's a common ploy. What good reason is there to exclude the nearly 3,000 deaths in 9/11? There isn't any, unless you're trying to prop up a narrative.

Think of it this way: suppose it were some sort of perverse contest between Islamic and non-Islamic terrorists. Excluding 9/11 so other guys got the prize is known as 'cheating' lol.

But it's a common ploy engaged in by the left. Also, the NYT piece is dated June of last year. The Orlando shooter, alone, killed 49 people---mostly gays, in June of this year. In other words, the death by jihadist count nearly doubled in one terrorist act.

Most rational people would deem the Islamic variety more dangerous than the non-Islamic variety. Moreso, when 9/11 is taken into account.

It's seems important to you that the reputation of Islam not be sullied by facts on the ground and the most current data.
Click to expand...

When 49 deaths "nearly doubles" the count of anything - who is distorting things?

Very revealing response, Darth. I'll continue to pray for you guys.
 
Thing1 said:
When 49 deaths "nearly doubles" the count of anything - who is distorting things?

Very revealing response, Darth. I'll continue to pray for you guys.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what other incidences you know of that would make "49 deaths 'nearly doubles' the count of anything - [distortion].
 
Seahawk said:
I'm curious as to what other incidences you know of that would make "49 deaths 'nearly doubles' the count of anything - [distortion].
Click to expand...

His comment, to me, is a huge indicator regarding the hysteria over Islamic terrorism.

Not to marginalize 49 deaths. But my goodness...can you do the math on that? What does that make the probability of dying in an Islamic terrorist attack?
 
Thing1 said:
His comment, to me, is a huge indicator regarding the hysteria over Islamic terrorism.

Not to marginalize 49 deaths. But my goodness...can you do the math on that? What does that make the probability of dying in an Islamic terrorist attack?
Click to expand...
You're going to say I sound like Yurt, but you are equivocating here. I have never seen you so defensive of other killings. For example, gun killings, Mass murders, I see you in some way blaming the people with the guns.

And I've never seen you defend Christians this way. But as you admit, you are more concerned about Muslims because they are being persecuted in your back yard.

The reality is, you care when the deaths help your political agenda.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top