Report: Islamic terrorism poses little threat.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Maniac Craniac, Feb 13, 2012.

Loading...
  1. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Some numbers to back up the anti-hysteria Radical U.S. Muslims Little Threat - Study - YouTube

    Here are a couple of facts not brought up in the video:

    • 1) Since the year 2000, more people have died from drowning in a bathtub than by Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States.
    • 2) Most terror attacks occurring in the United States are perpetrated by middle class, white men with no ties to Islam. (not surprising since middle class white people are the largest demographic in the country)

    So... who still advocates racial profiling against the ~ 2-3 million innocent, peaceful Arab Americans? Internment camps maybe? Maybe we should just execute them all, just to make sure that there isn't a single extremist in their midst?
     
  2. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    MC: "...more people have died from drowning in a bathtub than by Islamic terrorist attacks..."

    And this is why the Dept. of Home Security will be setting up check points at the entrance to every bathtub in America
     
  3. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    1. We should ban bathtubs then.
    2. Source?

    We don't profile Muslims. End of story, why bother bringing this up? I think there are some who want to profile Muslims or bown people wearing traditional Islamic garb, but we do not currently profile them. Do you pay attention to what is happening or is this some empty post to incite more lib hipster snark?
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Right, and Japan posed no threat after Pearl Harbor. :rolleyes:

    We will never know for sure how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted by a combination of direct action (taking out terrorist leaders), good intelligence and law enforcement, and sheer luck (Richard Reid unable to light his shoe bomb).
     
  5. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I have no specific source (sorry) but I've seen it mentioned on a few occasions in a few different locations that about 300-400 people die each year via bathtub drowning. The reason why I had that fresh in my mind is because it recently came up on an episode of Stossel (a great show by the way). This Google search shows that several other sources mention numbers in the 300-400 range as well: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=how+many+people+drown+in+bathtubs+each+year&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

    I hope what you say is true, but I don't believe it is true. I have Ann Coulter fresh in my mind, which is generally a bad thing anyway, but that was my motivation for making that point. Why make it here? I remember others on this board supporting racial profiling. Profiling of any type is a very bad idea, unless you are looking for someone specific, but people like Coulter are only a step a way from demanding internment camps.

    I don't really appreciate that the bifurcation you presented leaves no option other than to make me look like a fool. Not that my feelings are hurt- to you, I'm still just some anonymous, obnoxious punk on the internet.
     
  6. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    There is a big difference between "no threat" and "little threat." Also, your analogy is spot-on in that now you have consider the internment of innocent Japanese Americans when dismissing the point I intended to make. The Japanese government and Japanese Americans were entirely separate communities. Same with Muslims and their respective lands of origin. (FYI, many Muslim families have been in the United States for nearly 150 years- over, even, in some cases).

    However, we will know that even if the answer is that 5,000 American Muslims are terrorists (wildly unrealistic), then that makes up at most .0025% of the entire population of them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2012
  7. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'm just wondering why you bring this up? I could just as easily come in here and present actual statistics that show that a minority population of 13% in America commits over 50% of the violent crimes in our country, but to what point?

    I bet the rest of the world thinks muslim terrorists are a problem. Like Bruce mentioned crimes are thwarted all the time and you never know who the perpetrator is. We should all thank Bruce and his fellow LE brethen who try their best to keep us safe. We should be uniting and not posting rhetoric that seeks to incite and divide us.

    Can you imagine if a bunch of white americans attacked another country in a terrorist attack? What would happen to other white people in that country. Do you think ANY OTHER COUNTRY in this world would have the same measured response that we did after 9/11? Were there wide spread violence against muslims? Did we burn down mosque's? Cut people's thoats? Did we round up all Muslims? I think if you look there was a Sikh was murdered in the wake of the attacks and not much more than that. Sure some Americans are afraid and lash out, but again we are not deporting anyone nor are we calling for banning a religion (unless its Christianity) or depriving anyone here the rights that our forefathers fought and died for. This hunt for the great white defendant is getting old.

    I don't think you are a bad guy and I admire your intelligence, I'm just not sure what your motives are for posting this. Most of us trip all over ourselves to show we are not profiling, or racist or homophobic or whatever other shaming tactics are used to police the thought of free people.
     
  8. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Sorry, I really don't know what you mean by that...?

    You won't soon forget saying this to me :sly: However, you'd probably have a different opinion of me if you met me in person.

    Well, I didn't suppose that a post on the internet would magically change the world, but I had a thought in my head that I wanted to share and I happen to be a member of only one web forum (no, that other one doesn't count...) and so I posted it here :shrug:
     
  9. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'm more afraid of indifference than I am of any religous or idiealogical group out there.
     
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I suck on the internet.... I really do... :pat:
     
  11. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    I wonder why Americans think they, unlike the rest of the world, are exempt from attack. I could go on with reasons why you are not, but, frankly, the post would be too large. Accept that you constitute a threat to dictatorships and extremists and your collective psychological wellbeing is a tempting target because the message it sends to others. 9/11 proved that vulnerability to your enemies by the distress and disruption.

    Why do you think that threat has diminished? Do you think they got bored and went somewhere? Your enemies think in decades, not days, weeks, months or years. They can wait for your complaceny and you to turn inwards. The initial post would suggest that might be on the way.
     
  12. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    I really don't think many people thought that the everyday Muslim was/is going to kill them. Just like I don't believe that every black man is going to rob me. Of that every white guy is a stick in the mud. I think you have taken the media’s coverage as a poll of how the average American feels.

    Unless I see a dude with C4 on his chest I'm cool.
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Although, politicians (on both sides of the aisle) helped a lot by using the crisis as an excuse to expand the power of the federal government.

    Evidently, because I don't buy this either. 9/11 was over a decade ago. If there were all these sleeper cells sprinkled throughout the U.S. ready to act, what are they waiting for? If they're so well organized, then when the Americans and their coalition of the willing invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, why didn't al-Qaeda threaten to assassinate a Congressman or other U.S. government official in Washington, D.C. every week until they withdrew?
     
  14. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Again, all a terrorist has to do is get it right 1 time. Nobody remembers the other 99 times we beat them. Apparently you forgot about all of these terrorist attack attempts:

    1. Dec 2001, Paris to Miami, Richard Colvin, Shoe Bomber.
    2. May 2002, Chicago to Illinois, jose Padilla, Building dirty bomb.
    3. Sep 2002, Buffalo New York, Six Yemenis bomb making providing material to al-Qaeda cell in Buffalo.
    4. March 2003, Columbus Ohio, Lyman Francis, aiding al-Qaeda plans to destroy Brooklyn Bridge.
    5. June 2003, North VA, accused of training for hol war in the US.
    6. August 2004, New York, Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay, accused of attempting to blow up NY subway in advance of Republican Nat Conv.
    7. August 2004, Albany New York, Arrested at mosuqe after purchasing should fired rocket to assinate diplomat.

    I think you get the picture, just in case here are some more dates of terrorist or attempted terrorist attacks on US soil:

    June 2005
    August 2005
    December 2005
    February 2006
    April 2006
    June 2006
    July 2006
    May 7, 2007
    June 3, 2007

    May 20, 2009
    September 24, 2009
    December 25, 2009


    And to be more clear on this there are even more like this that we will not hear about until they are declassified.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2012
  15. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    I'm torn. I do think we need to have a vigilant approach, especially to prevent attacks like 9/11 from occurring, but I also recognize that we must simultaneously act to ensure that we do not trample civil liberties in the process.

    That being said, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the last two posts.

    Yes, we have intercepted terrorist attacks. However, especially in the case of a suicide attack, there really isn't a whole lot we can do to stop the average terrorist if he is willing to die to make a point. When they get caught, they are usually trying to concoct some sort of elaborate plot, likely to make a name for themselves. If they were just wanting to kill, kill, kill, then there isn't a lot stopping a lone gunman from going wild with an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, like the killer in Norway did.

    We haven't had that in America from terrorist organizations, so it makes me think two things.

    1) The terrorist organizations likely haven't infiltrated as much as we may fear they have.

    2) They apparently are more interested in larger, symbolic attacks than in lone-wolf style killing sprees. This is a good thing because the bigger plots are easier to stop.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2012
  16. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    I'm here to stop it; military trained and willing to die in that situation to save others. I'm not being facetious or dramatic and there are a lot of people out here like me. Other LEGAL gun owners will stop it.

    There's a reason killers with guns choose their targets wisely. Norway-gun free zone. VA Tech college campus-gun free zone, Ft Hood-gun free zone, Columbine High school-gun free zone. How many killings have happened at gun shows? Lots of people carried at T.E.A. party rallies, how many gun crimes were committed at those? There were more deaths from the OWS movement in 4 months than in 18 months of T.E.A parties (with a lot more people attending T.E.A. parties than OWS areas).

    "We haven't had that in America from terrorist organizations, so it makes me think two things.

    1) The terrorist organizations likely haven't infiltrated as much as we may fear they have.

    2) They apparently are more interested in larger, symbolic attacks than in lone-wolf style killing sprees. This is a good thing because the bigger plots are easier to stop."

    What about 3) All of the dedicated men and women who work 24, 7, 365 to ensure that cowards do not attack us on our soil? Your "not as infiltrated us that much" could be right to a point, but we are being attacked or planned to be attacked daily. I'm not saying this to cause fear, just to realize that it is a dangerous world out there and some people want to kill you just because you live where you do.

    "The snake will bite you whether you call it Cobra or Mr. Cobra"
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's true, and that asymmetrical standard of victory better supports my argument than yours. That's especially so in that your argument relies on the assumption of near perfect interception on the part of federal agents. I'm not going to say that people working for the government never get anything right, I know that's not so and I'm sure there are a lot of people working in counterterrorism who are very skilled and dedicated to their jobs. But nobody's perfect, and you have to admit that the federal government is just about the last place one typically looks for peak efficiency.
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Yes, but how many will die before you or someone like you can stop an attacker?


    You would think that a terrorist would be smart enough to choose a target not populated with gun-carrying citizens. A terrorist could shoot up a university campus just as easily as the VA Tech killer did.


    I think that the trained individuals you mention have done a solid job of thwarting attacks. My point is simply that a lone-wolf attack is extremely difficult to stop because it requires so little planning. You don't have to have multiple test runs, examine building schematics, hijack planes, or anything of the sort.

    1) Get guns and ammo.

    2) Pick location.

    3) Shoot.

    Sure, law enforcement or armed citizens will likely eventually stop the attacker (which is what usually happens in shooting sprees unless the perpetrator commits suicide), but if the attacker is willing to die, a lot of carnage can occur before it's all done.

    The good news is that if a terrorist organization is trying to orchestrate a 9/11 style plot, they will likely be caught. All the vigilance in the world, however, won't stop someone from killing at least a few people if an attacker really wants to kill and doesn't care if he dies in the process.

    The reality is that attacks are typically stopped in the planning stages, not in the execution. In a lone-wolf attack, you could wake up in the morning, get the idea to do it, and be shooting by mid-afternoon. That's not a lot of planning time.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2012
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    The big difference is that the Japanese Armed Forces wore uniforms, so there was no doubt who the threat was. Not so with Islamic terrorist.

    Bingo.

    There's a reason why spree shooters don't ever target police stations or NRA conventions.....we shoot back.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vDA9CIj93c
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2012
  20. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    For one thing, spree shooters have targeted police stations, but that is not a good example since the officers are uniformed and identifiable.

    NRA conventions should be a prime target. It only takes a few shots fired before a food fight takes place with bullets instead of milk cartons. Put yourself in that position. If you started to hear a few loud bangs and turned around to see multiple people with guns drawn, where would you aim? How do you know who shot whom first and which of the hysterical people are on your side?

    Jared Loughner wasn't stopped by a gun, despite the fact that a gun-carrying civilian was nearby. There is a lesson to be learned in what happened that day. The gun-carrying civilian heard several shots fired, drew his own weapon and turned to see somebody standing in front of him, with a gun in his hand. He decide NOT to fire because he didn't want to add to the mayhem, possibly shooting the wrong person or being mistaken himself for the original shooter. Thankfully, he made the right decision. If the gun-carrying civilian fired, he wouldn't have killed Loughner, he would have killed an innocent bystander- in fact, a Good Samaritan who tackled Loughner and safely retrieved the gun.

    Let's play that scenario out further, shall we. If the gun-carrying civilian took a shot at the innocent bystander, what would have happened next? More blood, more screams, a frightened public and oh my, nobody has any way of knowing whether the gun-carrying civilian is or is not an accomplice to the original shooter. That would be a horrible time for the police to show up or for yet another gun-carrying civilian to get involved.
     

Share This Page