Another bombing

[dismal]

There are Basque muslims.

But the point here is not to speculate. If you can't name the bomber by definition we don't know if he or she was muslim or not.

Oh so the goal posts are suddenly moving. Will it soon be only bombings committed on Tuesday by a dog on a unicycle?

Uh, no. The bet is the same as it ever was. You demonstrate what religion the bomber in these cases was and we'll add them to the count.

 

[dismal]

Also does American bombing of Yemen not count as terrorism for any real reason or just because we said so?

Don't know, I am just using Dismal's strict definitions.

So in May in the West there were 4 bombings 1 by a muslim terrorist and 3 by Christian groups.
In April (counting Russia) there were 8 bombings in the West. 2 by islamic terrorists and 6 by Christian groups

So, if those all counted, which they wouldn't since my initial post proposing the bet was in June, you'd owe me $11,100.

 

[Elixir]

Don't know, I am just using Dismal's strict definitions.

So in May in the West there were 4 bombings 1 by a muslim terrorist and 3 by Christian groups.
In April (counting Russia) there were 8 bombings in the West. 2 by islamic terrorists and 6 by Christian groups

So, if those all counted, which they wouldn't since my initial post proposing the bet was in June, you'd owe me $11,100.

... which you could then spend trying to discount the existence of Christian terrorists. What a deal!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Don't know, I am just using Dismal's strict definitions.

So in May in the West there were 4 bombings 1 by a muslim terrorist and 3 by Christian groups.
In April (counting Russia) there were 8 bombings in the West. 2 by islamic terrorists and 6 by Christian groups

So, if those all counted, which they wouldn't since my initial post proposing the bet was in June, you'd owe me $11,100.

Those are not my terms. Now you owe me $145,873.493. Yes you need to pay me those 3 mills as well!

and you know I don't make bets with weasely characters who would never pay even if they lost.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that most terrorists are Muslims, then that makes the exclusion of Muslim immigrants, the profiling of Muslims for searches, and the internment of Muslims for the proactive protection of the rest of the population EXACTLY as well reasoned as would be the exclusion of male immigrants, the profiling of men for searches, and the internment of men for the proactive protection of the rest of the population.

Or are you going to argue that it's not true that most terrorists are men?

Even if EVERY SINGLE terrorist was a Muslim, that would STILL not justify taking any action against Muslims as a whole, because 'all terrorists are Muslims' is NOT synonymous with 'all Muslims are terrorists'. Even if the former were true, it is a useless fact, if our goal is to identify who the next European terrorist might be; It cuts the pool of suspects from an unmanageable 700 million to an unmanageable 40 million. What is the plan, to lock up 40 million people in order to get the half dozen who you wanted?

Would you be in favour of the police rounding up the entire population of Atlanta in order to be sure that they caught the guy who was planning the next armed robbery in that city? It's far more likely to be someone from Atlanta than someone from elsewhere, so by your logic, that's a reasonable approach to take.

I agree with you, but I also see you highlighting Sam Harris' point that some people really are more likely than others, based on simply being male or simply being Muslim. That doesn't support locking up all men or all muslims, because that is too high a price for society to pay for the increased security (and there WOULD be increased security), but it may make sense to spend more of our limited scrutiny on them (as that is a lower price for society to pay. This is an argument for profiling if you tilt priorities a little in favour of security over freedom (and there must be a balance).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Standard leftist garbage.

The people without a future are generally not the ones that become the terrorists.

It's the losers in life combined with radicals pushing them and providing money that become the terrorists.

You're describing the results of a bad political situation.

Yeah, that there's somebody out there who wants to pour the money into terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Standard leftist garbage.

The people without a future are generally not the ones that become the terrorists.

It's the losers in life combined with radicals pushing them and providing money that become the terrorists.

I'll tell that to the Cubans.

I was referring to a personal sense, not economic.

It's a common myth amongst the left that it's the people with no future that turn to terrorism. When you look at the world the people in the worst situations don't. Terrorism is a weapon of war waged by nations and the very wealthy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also Dismal, I still want my money. You forgot these five bombing that took place in Europe by Christians so far in 2017:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124503/Fifth-Spanish-bomb-explodes.html

And note that they were bombing property, not people.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Also Dismal, I still want my money. You forgot these five bombing that took place in Europe by Christians so far in 2017:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124503/Fifth-Spanish-bomb-explodes.html

And note that they were bombing property, not people.

Others that I cited later were against people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure why Basque separatists or November 17th members would be Muslim. could you explain?

Also does American bombing of Yemen not count as terrorism for any real reason or just because we said so?

Your failure to understand that terrorism is about attacks on civilians, not on combatants doesn't change reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not sure why Basque separatists or November 17th members would be Muslim. could you explain?

There are Basque muslims.

But the point here is not to speculate. If you can't name the bomber by definition we don't know if he or she was muslim or not.

From Wikipedia:

Traditionally Basques have been mostly Roman Catholics. In the 19th century and well into the 20th, Basques as a group remained notably devout and churchgoing. In recent years church attendance has fallen off, as in most of Western Europe. The region has been a source of missionaries like Francis Xavier and Michel Garicoïts. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, was a Basque. California Franciscan Fermín Lasuén was born in Vitoria. Lasuén was the successor to Franciscan Padre Junípero Serra and founded 9 of the 21 extant California Missions along the coast.

A sprout of Protestantism in the continental Basque Country produced the first translation of the new Testament into Basque by Joanes Leizarraga. After Henry III of Navarre converted to Catholicism to become king of France, Protestantism almost disappeared.

Bayonne held a Jewish community composed mainly of Sephardi Jews fleeing from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions. There were also important Jewish and Muslim communities in Navarre before the Castilian invasion of 1512-21.

Nowadays, according to one single opinion poll, only slightly more than 50% of Basques profess some kind of belief in God, while the rest are either agnostic or atheist. The number of religious skeptics increases noticeably for the younger generations, while the older ones are more religious.[26] Roman Catholicism is, by far, the largest religion in Basque Country. In 2012, the proportion of Basques that identify themselves as Roman Catholic was 58.6%,[27] while it is one of the most secularized communities of Spain: 24.6% were non-religious and 12.3% of Basques were atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basques#Pre-Christian_religion_and_mythology

 

[LordKiran]

Also does American bombing of Yemen not count as terrorism for any real reason or just because we said so?

Your failure to understand that terrorism is about attacks on civilians, not on combatants doesn't change reality.

So when American bombs purposefully kill non combatants (They're factored into the collateral damage the military/executive branch deems 'acceptable') that's not instilling terror?

When American bombs purposefully kill first responders, that doesn't instill terror? Civilized nations consider such things to be war crimes, typically.

Having trouble facing the mirror, LP?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your failure to understand that terrorism is about attacks on civilians, not on combatants doesn't change reality.

So when American bombs purposefully kill non combatants (They're factored into the collateral damage the military/executive branch deems 'acceptable') that's not instilling terror?

When American bombs purposefully kill first responders, that doesn't instill terror? Civilized nations consider such things to be war crimes, typically.

Having trouble facing the mirror, LP?

You can instill all the terror you want in the enemy force, that's not terrorism.

And collateral damage is an unfortunate fact of war, it is not terrorism. It's terrorism when you aim at civilians.

 

[untermensche]

So when American bombs purposefully kill non combatants (They're factored into the collateral damage the military/executive branch deems 'acceptable') that's not instilling terror?

When American bombs purposefully kill first responders, that doesn't instill terror? Civilized nations consider such things to be war crimes, typically.

Having trouble facing the mirror, LP?

You can instill all the terror you want in the enemy force, that's not terrorism.

And collateral damage is an unfortunate fact of war, it is not terrorism. It's terrorism when you aim at civilians.

Starting a war is terrorism.

If you purposely start an unnecessary war, that is a massive act of terrorism and you cannot claim you now have the right to do whatever you want because it is wartime.

That is as ignorant as GW calling himself a "war president".

No asshole you are not a wartime president.

You are a terrorist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can instill all the terror you want in the enemy force, that's not terrorism.

And collateral damage is an unfortunate fact of war, it is not terrorism. It's terrorism when you aim at civilians.

Starting a war is terrorism.

If you purposely start an unnecessary war, that is a massive act of terrorism and you cannot claim you now have the right to do whatever you want because it is wartime.

That is as ignorant as GW calling himself a "war president".

No asshole you are not a wartime president.

You are a terrorist.

I suggest investing in a dictionary.