How do you explain this Sup Forums?

How do you explain this Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

warsintheworld.com/search.php?stype=full&q=islam&searcha=Search
fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You're not yet on Europe levels nor do you border the muslim countries.

Crusade when?

What constitutes a terror attack? People dying? Protesting? Picketing at a faggot's funeral?

How many people died in these terror attacks?

This. They just want to call everything "terrorism" so they don't need to use due process.

I would say this has taken some statistic completely out of context, i.e. what constitutes and attack, staking specific events out, etc.

For instance, over 3,000 died on 9/11 alone. Who came even close to that who wasn't muslim? Timothy Mcveigh?

Edward snowden is a terrorist technically so what does that mean

No its like hispanic whites, they broaden the scope to load the statistics so people dont hate muslims.

Those graphics were manipulated by Jews. That's how Sup Forums answer

It's not true.

>How do you explain this Sup Forums?

By looking at decade-long trends. Besides, 6% is still an overrepresentation of 6x.

Because terrorist and terrorism are subjective being that anyone can be classified as a terrorist if their goals are counterproductive to an outside observers goals.

>I don't like that he's a terrorist
>I do like that he's resistance against tyranny

Do they count non-violent terrorists attacks or something?

>Muslims are shit at the only thing they're supposed to be good at

Here'st he actual graph.

This new trend on Sup Forums where you just lie through your fucking teeth cause no one checks anything.

That's a major overrepresentation considering their percentage of population.

Define terrorism first, then add the rest of the world in.

>How do you explain this
Before niggers and spics were imported in huge numbers, 94% of all crimes in the US were committed by whites also. They're still minorities, but committ the majority of crimes.

Around the world, Islamic terrorism is the majority of terrorism. As their numbers grow their terrorism grows. Do you want that, or nah?

Also, tell us which terrorist attacks do the most mass killing?

:^)

>Missing which percent of the deaths are thanks to Muslims

During these periods of time, the Muslim population in the US was a tiny minority.

In fact even in 2015, there were only around 3.3 million Muslims living in the US.

To give some perspective, the UK census stated 2.71 million Muslims lived in England and Wales.

Muslim populations become increasingly violent, as their population majority increases. It is a phenomena, that has been looked at closely, with plenty of examples to back it up.

warsintheworld.com/search.php?stype=full&q=islam&searcha=Search

...

>leftist echo chamber

lets look at death toll from terrorism in the same span of time.

the oklahoma city bombing killed very few, the unibomber did jack shit... 9/11 thousands die

so going by deaths from terrorist attacks muslims got like 99.9% of the kill count in the same span of time

So, I just took a quick glance at the site and its publication about terrorism in 2015 and it reports a significant raise both religious attacks and arrests.
Where is this graph coming from ?

It's not even America and it comes from some progressive group that probably rates purse snatching along the same lines as flying planes into buildings.

>Where is this graph coming from ?
The FBI apparently.

By them not choosing to count by numbers of dead.

Muslims less than 2% of US population

6% means they are responsible for 3 times the terrorist attacks as non-Muslims

You chart is also faked but whatevs

Shitpost like yours allows us to educate newfags and sharpen our rhetorical swords.

That's why shitposting makes us stronger.

Please post most bullshit for us to poke holes in so we can practice crushing normies on Facebook and IRL.

Fucking idiot

This, also mormons.

They probably counted that guy who went coocoo and attacked the planned parenthood as one

>there was a terrorist attack almost daily in 2009
Fuggggg, I don't remember it that way. There must've been thousands of deaths.

Population sizes.

The majority of crime is also committed by whites, because the nation is 78% white. However, the majority of niggers in this country commit crimes.

See how data manipulation can be used to push bullshit narratives about "the real problems with this nation"? Of course you do, you're a fucking libshit.

>Shitpost like yours allows us to educate newfags and sharpen our rhetorical swords
Recently got into an argument with a Burnout irl. It was a massacre

>78% white
yeah...I really don't think so

>begin response
>check flag

Is it just instinct, or do you actively plan out your shitposts?

Muslims make up 0.9% of the US population. This is actually up significantly since 2007 due to the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, when it was 0.4%. Before 2007 it was even lower, but let's use the 0.4% estimate for 1980-2005.

0.4% of Americans committed 6% of terrorist attacks. This means they were over-represented by 1400% or 14 times. Moreover, the statistic provided is terrorist acts committed, not injuries and fatalities. Muslims are significantly more over-represented on terrorism injuries and fatalities due in large part to 9/11.

>thailand
>more attacks that fatalities
its like theyre not even trying

My polite college educated 35-ish liberal friends don't dare talk politics around me after their 9000th blowout.

mfw Sup Forums has made me into a monster

Yes. Leaving bacon at a mosque and a suicide bombing are both considered terrorist attack and counted equally in the study.

That one is following you. You're his special project.

Until we know how they define "terrorism" this graph is useless.

Also need to consider death tolls.

Also need to consider percentage of the population. It's like saying "Hey, whites commit just as much murder as blacks! Look at these numbers!" - Makes sense until you realize that blacks are only 12รท of the population.

The FBI actually has a very specific definition for terrorism even though there is no internationally agreed definition. See: fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

The tl;dr is that terrorism has two components according to the FBI.
1. Dangerous to human life.
2. Intended to coerce or intimidate the civilian population or government.

Gang vs gang violence does not qualify, to my knowledge, as rival gangs do not qualify as "a civilian population". Gangs beheading civilians and putting them on display to intimidate other civilians as they do in Mexico would qualify. Blowing up federal buildings Bill Ayers style qualifies, even if there are no casualties.

still a weaselly definition right?

1%of population committed 6% of terror attacks? You're right, this is nothing to be concerned about.

Sauce?

So what are some examples of things the FBI qualifies as terrorism, and how are they weighted in the graph?

For example, does the Oklahoma bombing have the same weight as 9/11?

Also, I'm not discounting domestic terrorism. That's definitely an issue. But those are our own people, we have to deal with it. We don't HAVE to keep importing more Muslims.

Throwing a shoe at George W. Bush carries the same weight as 9/11.

>They probably counted that guy who went coocoo and attacked the planned parenthood as one
Was it really just the one guy? The number of times it gets brought up you'd think that happened every week.

ikr other then Breivik I can't think of any non-religious terrorist attacks that happened in Europe over that time period, the hell are they talking about?

There have only been a tiny handful of attacks on abortion clinics. Only two bombings.

They just love to bring it up because they can smugly say OH YEAH WELL WHITE CHRISTIANS ALSO COMMIT TERRORISM HA HA REKT. Without even taking frequency or proportionality into account.

They probably count drawing a swastika on a synagogue as terrorist attack

>Breivik
>Non-religious

You clearly haven't read his manifesto.

Aw shit you're right he was pretty neo-crusader wasn't he, what in the hell non-religious terrorist attacks are they talking about in this graph ?

Now let's compare the death count.

Does anyone have the death counts?

So gangs shooting and robbing outsiders of a area is not considered terrorism?

...

It is simple, the shit they are calling terrorism is not really terrorism.

There are very very very few Muslims in the US.

I bet the RATE of Muslim terrorist attacks in the US is through the roof.

Also, I bet the rate of DEADLY Muslim attacks is significant.

Only a handful people were ever killed in abortion clinic attacks, over some 30 years or something.

More people died in one hour in that Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris which was committed by Muslims.

He isn't religious.

He calls himself a "cultural Christian", and even says he never identified as Christian.

The United States is only two percent Muslim. The fact that they commit more than three times the terrorism attacks than their population calls for is concerning.

See

>1. Dangerous to human life.
>2. Intended to coerce or intimidate the civilian population or government.

That could include a guy on his overly loud, unmuffled Harley riding too fast on a wet road near a school.

Around 90% of terrorism is eco-terrorism committed by groups like ALF. Every time they torch a lumber yard or a factory or whatever the government classifies it as a terrorist act. Helps them to fabricate bs statistics like this

>98% of a population committed 94% of terror acts
>2% of the population commits 6% of terror acts
How does that make Muslims look better in any way?

Non-Muslim terrorist attack = scribbled a swastika on a wall
Muslim terrorist attack = mowed people down with AK-47s.

Also, it's Australia.

...

>new trend
>new

Nigga please.