I constantly here people quote that "there are more terrorist attacks committed in the US by non-Muslims than there are...

I constantly here people quote that "there are more terrorist attacks committed in the US by non-Muslims than there are by Muslims. This is probably false, but every single liberal quotes it so I assume they've got some pseudo-science they use to justify it. What possible accounting to they use to get this result?

Other urls found in this thread:

globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
youtube.com/watch?v=UpkhdoGM0p0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

>there are more terrorist attacks committed in the US by non-Muslims than there are by Muslims

Only true if you ignore things like 9/11.

How many terrorists attacks happenes on 9/11?

So Jews, liberals and spics are the problem?

America or the world?
I hear France has red wine terrorists

Blacks are responsible for most of the violence and death in america

they count shit like some stupid animal right cunts "freeing" some cows in a slaughterhouse

People who still think random desert Muslims did 9/11 are literally brainwashed cucks.

No i only said that if only you count numbers that fact is most certainly true. Now more interesting statistics would be number of deaths caused

op, this is kinda true, but muslims are like less than 1% of usa, this is the issue, they do it was more considering that

its like when in a specific crime whites do 60%of more and people use this to defend blacks, when blacks are only 14% of the usa population and they managed to do 40% against vs whites who are 77% of the population
also, they islam does stuff like 9/11 but they ignore that

So Muslims are still over-represented given their population. Also dubious criteria for what is and isn't a "terrorist" attack.

>probably false
>because I assume it's false
Lmao cuck

Wanted to reply to

From wiki

>Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim

That means most radical activists that attacks other people are terrorist. People in general think about deadly terrorism like the ones sandniggers do so they are not wrong. They just boundled up all kind of terrorism into one big fat pile. Animal activists and radical leftism is actually the biggest terror groups in the west but they rarely kills people.

I said nothing about that only answered to question in OP

>What possible accounting to they use to get this result?

Only because under current US law almost everything can get under the umbrella of "terrorism".

It all depends on a couple factors:
>What do you define as a terrorist attack (this is the biggest one)
>What you define as a mudslime
>What time frame you're using as a baseline

It's all about controlling the narrative to say what you want. Most of these people probably consider the boston tea party a terrorist attack.

Because it was by definition

Muslims are 1% of the US population, so they would have to be massively overepresented in terrorism to even come close.
Which they likely are, though the numbers can be fudged with. They can say the San Bernardino shooters xaused "workplace violence".

Statistics never lie but liars use statistics. Few if any of the attacks in the US commited by non-Muslims actually fit into the definition of a terror-attack, ie a systematic and intentional use of fear and violence to push through an agenda/narrative. Most of the mass shootings in the US are either autists sperging out, or gangrelated shootings.

The problem with that statistic is that they stretch the definition of terrorism. Things like school shootings count as terrorism under their retarded definition.

It's because things like ELF, and Greenpeace are now terrorists. They also don't count things like the ft. Hood shooter (Muslim who shot up the base) or the Florida shooting as terrorism. Then throw in a few biker gangs fighting over territory, call them white supremacists. Subtract the BLM killing cops, because Obama says they aren't terrorists (funny, they are using violence to force politics which is the definition of terrorism).

It's how you interpret the word "terrorism" that allows you to make the distinction.

4

NEW EMAILS: Hillary Clinton Puts State Dept. Up For Sale to Clinton Foundation Donors

youtube.com/watch?v=UpkhdoGM0p0