Your data is directly and explicitly contradicted by Professor Arie Perliger's study at the
U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center who showed that there were 337 incidents of right-wing violence each year in the decade after 9/11 causing a total of 254 fatalities. This study was done in 2012. Your data, however, is the more updated one with 5 additional instances of right-wing violence with 19 fatalities. Therefore, I'd say that ring-wing violence in the updated version would amount to 342 incidents of ring-wing violence and 273 fatalities.
I don't agree that it directly contradicts that, although there's clearly a different metric and methodology that's being used. For starters, my source appears to focus more strictly on deadly attacks, while yours appears to deal with violent attacks in general, even if innocent people were hurt rather than killed, even if the violent actor was killed before accomplishing all or part of his goal. That doesn't mean yours is wrong, it's just a different methodology (and less up to date) so it wouldn't be advisable to cross-pollinate the data as if the studies were the exact same thing but with slightly different parameters on the dates covered- that's not really the situation. This is the methodology from the source that I found.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/methodology.html
And here is a different dataset indicating who has been charged with plotting terrorism, whether it was carried out or not.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/analysis.html
Please note that this pertains to indictments, rather than deadly attacks, and the number of indicted persons in this dataset is much higher, we're looking at over 500 people now in the same time frame. And this time, the number of people indicted for extremist activities are heavily jihadist by a 2 to 1 margin. So to your point, despite engaging in fewer deadly attacks (although these attacks are more deadly on average), there are way more jihadist extremists getting indicted before they are necessarily able to bring off a deadly attack. This is worth pointing out, because to a certain extent it would seem that Far Right extremists are able to to whatever they want and with very little attention from national security, relatively speaking. It's also worth pointing out because I'm agreeing with something that you've said and treating it as useful information that should be acted on in basically the way that you describe.
Not only that, your data specifically only showed far right fatalities in comparison to Muslim attacks which of course fails to include other types of attacks like the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook shooting and other types of shooting that have since occurred in the U.S.
That is an acceptable comparison, for anyone who's interested in a direct, apples to apples comparison of jihadist terror to Far Right terror. Again, to your point though, you're quite right to say that US law enforcement and US national security is spending very nearly all of their time effort and energy on stopping every jihadist threat possible, and these are the attacks that have come to pass despite that. By comparison, and by the assessment of law enforcement itself, the Far Right is not getting much attention at all and they are (comparatively) able to do just about anything they want, and this is the outcome. Just so we're clear, I'm looking at these jihadist numbers as the best possible outcome that we could have possibly gotten, given the vast resources and energy that have been expended in preventing them. When I look at the Far Right attacks, I see near limitless potential for improving on this outcome if national security can devote some of their attention and resources to preventing it (or even properly understanding it and how it's developing), which they are currently not doing to any large extent.
However, even allowing for only the above (minus other attacks like Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook because they are not right-wing attacks), I'd say that when calculated percentage-wise, that amounts to 2.92%. Let's, however, round that up to 3%.
It would really help if you could make an apples-to-apples comparison and stay within a single study and a single methodology. Of course it makes sense to compare the death toll of one ideology to that of another ideology, that's just how this is done. It's roughly the same reason why you don't compare ideology-motivated killings to death by natural causes. You compare ideologies to each other in order to see which ideology is more deadly, and after that you take proportionality and existing prevention strategies into account.
Now, taking your own words amended correctly with the above study: "....is 3 noticeably greater than 1%?"
You have to torture the numbers quite a bit in order to get yourself to 3%, but yes actually 3% is significantly larger than 1%. You really enjoy taking my words and replacing some of them, don't you? Argument by Mad Libs, I suppose.
In your own words reversed back at you:
That's more than a little snarky by you, and you've been doing quite a bit of this. Be advised, when you present your argument in this way I read the rest of it carefully (if at all) less than half the time.
The reason I mention this is that if you take into account all of the shootings and mass murders that have happened,
There's absolutely no reason to do that. I'm examining an ideology, so of course I'm going to compare it to other ideology-based murders. Ideology should account for zero killings, or something very close to it. We need to treat that as a reasonable and realistic goal. It really doesn't work that way with many of the ways in which people die.
This really is about ideology, and not about race.
Finally, you are essentially fear-mongering about "deadliest" in terms of proportion of population while not taking into account the fact that that the Orlando club shooting is the only incident and real reason that drives the number up in your fatality data
It is the largest figure, but there are two others (which I mentioned) that were more deadly than the Dylann Roof shooting at the church in Charleston. I pointed that out. It does skew the average, but you're looking at a high median for the jihadists anyway.
whereas the Orlando's shooter's motives while being terrorism is also
Yes he did clearly pledge himself to ISIS, And along with that terrorist acts especially by self-starters (or the lone wolf, if you call it that) are almost always "also something else." It's rarely just one thing, but when it's clearly an act of terror done in the name of a terror group, that puts it in a categorical home. You can say other things about the people who are in that categorical home, but they don't leave the home. They stay right there.
Moreover, your fear-mongering is AGAIN, and I repeat, a SIGN of your prejudice. So, kindly, stop it.
I acknowledge your concern. I wish you showed a little more concern for your fellow Muslim forum member who just recently made some threats toward me involving the sword of Allah and the rise of a legitimate caliphate that will punish all the wrongdoers. And then there's the other guy who talks about stealing vast sums of money from the evil heathen national state, loves the idea of stabbing the national state in the back and really seriously wants to do it, and brags about how easy it would be for him to do it. Unless there's been some communication that I'm not able to see, you seem to have a bit of a hair-trigger with me while completely ignoring people around you who are walking the line just this side of language that would be of interest to Homeland Security.
Also, I think I'm going to start reporting your posts; you are welcome here to learn about Islam, but you are not welcome here to spread your prejudice.
When I started this thread, I was asking Muslims to give me an idea of what they would want to do in order to stop extremism within their own religion. I didn't get much from anyone, and I got even less from you. You clearly don't have an interest in assisting me with the original purpose of this thread, and when you said you were done with it and wouldn't post on it anymore, that was the right idea.
You mad? Fine. Go.
Also, I'd like to point out that if we take into account 9/11, which I know you have not done, but you did keep mentioning it, and it seemed were keen to take the tragedy into account. So, I'd like to tell you that there were 19 hijackers as reported by FBI in total. However, for those 2,996 American deaths (of whom 60 were Muslims) on September 11, we have killed 4 million people with the War on Terror. Is that fair? Are you satisfied? Because it is not "Christian" or "American" blood, it shouldn't matter, right? Because "might is right" as the saying goes.
When al Qaeda no longer exists, that will be enough. It's not about how many people get killed, there's no particular goal where that is concerned, the goal is the cessation of al Qaeda's existence. If al Qaeda transitions from being a terror organization to a more traditional political group, that would probably do that trick too. One way or another, al Qaeda with its present form and operation must no longer exist, and that may take another 10 to 20 years depending on a lot of things that may happen.
Even from your "Evangelical" perspective, you should at least, however, be able to see that is
4 million people with whom you are now never able to share the "good news" of the gospel.
That's being offset by all these externally displaced refugees, who have been forced to leave a country in which no one ever would have been able to share the Gospel with them (because it was illegal, boo these laws) and now they're coming to Europe, Canada, and to a lesser extent the United States, where they have a realistic chance of hearing the Gospel in a place where this isn't illegal.
When I'm looking at these laws in Islamic countries that prohibit any attempt to persuade someone to leave Islam, I don't just tuck tail and say "If you say so." I say "You really shouldn't have those kinds of laws, there is a workaround for that and you're not going to enjoy it."
I know you're going to hate that part of my response, and I'll remind you again that when you said you were done conversing on this thread, that was the right decision. You should have stuck with that.
I should also like to mention that so far you have not shown any evidence of being indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is not specifically that you're any worse than than anyone else similarly prejudiced in some way but that your prejudice time and again negates your claim. Perhaps all the time that you've spent on IB would be better spent on improving yourself to better be able to make such a claim.
Thanks, that is a well thought out response.
And there's just one more thing.
Again, it would be a good idea for you if it really was the last thing. Let's see if this is a good place to end it. You know what? That's pretty good. Nice quote. You can let that be the last word, if you're willing to just let it lie this time.
"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
