Zero Civilians Killed in US by Islamic Terrorists - again

shafique

As far as I can tell, this thread will make a refreshing change from the posts which those obsessed with skin colour have been posting lately. 🙄

Just the facts are presented over at Loonwatch, and it is worth reading the whole article. Here are two extracts as a taster. Deniers of the facts and trolls, please look away now.:

Annual Report: Zero Civilians in U.S. Killed by Islamic Terrorism… Just Like Every Year Since 9/11Posted on 09 June 2012 by Danios

Following the devastating 9/11 attack, terrorism has become the number one issue for the U.S. government. Just under 60% of discretionary spending for the 2012 federal budget was allocated to the military–ten times the amount spent on education and health care. As a U.S. citizen, over half of your income tax goes to sustaining the war state. Since 9/11, more than a trillion dollars have been spent funding the War on Terror. Aside from depleting the nation’s treasury, thousands of U.S. soldiers have been killed during these hostilities.
...
A similar situation exists in Europe: Europol has been releasing annual terrorism reports since 2006. As I indicated in my 2011 article Europol Reports Zero Deaths from Islamic Terrorism in Europe:

Zero civilians in Europe have been killed by Islamic terrorists in the last half decade. In fact, the only injuries incurred from Islamic terrorism were to a security guard who “was slightly wounded.” Perhaps the “anti-jihadist” blogosphere should find this one security guard and give him a medal of honor and declare him a martyr for the cause.

Unfortunately, since the publication of that article, a French citizen of Algerian ethnicity shot and killed three soldiers and four civilians. This brings the total civilians in Europe killed from Islamic terrorism (2006-present) to a grand total of four, or an average of less than one person per year.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the great threat of Islamic terrorism in the Western world: you are more likely to die from an allergic reaction to peanuts, being struck and killed by lightning, or being crushed to death by your television set than being killed by a Muslim terrorist.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/annual-report-zero-civilians-in-us-killed-by-islamic-terrorism-just-like-every-year-since-911/

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

Annual Report: Zero Civilians in U.S. Killed by Islamic Terrorism… Just Like Every Year Since 9/11

If you ignore the ten civilian murders by John Allen Muhammad (convicted of terrorism); civilian physician assistant death in the Fort Hood shooting, Michael Grant Cahill; and Pamela Waechter, murdered by this Jew hating lunatic:

Witnesses reported that Haq began shouting "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel" before he began his shooting spree. Haq is reported to have walked down the hallway, shooting into offices as he passed by. Haq then shot three more women in the abdomen: Layla Bush, Stumbo, and Christina Rexroad. Pamela Waechter received a gunshot in the chest. As the wounded Waechter attempted to flee down a flight of stairs, Haq reached over the railing and shot her for the second time in the head, killing her.

...He also said, "hese are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around

So, that's actually twelve civilians killed in the United States by Muslim terrorists.

Btw, to put these numbers in context, how many civilians have been killed in the US by non-Muslim terrorists?

It's also interesting to note before Muhammad Merah, there was Naveed Haq.

No society seems immune from the rising tide of deadly Antisemitism. I witness Antisemitism and anti-White racism on this forum on a daily basis. I wonder which member I'll see on the news involved in a shooting rampage; shafique, berrin or desertdudeshj?

shafique

Deniers of the facts and trolls, please look away now.

You should have taken my advice - and certainly shouldn't have brought up statistics. You know you always fail when you go down that route.

Anyway, your school-boy error this time is to confuse what the official statistics (by the FBI) record and what your favourite Islamophobic websites lead you to believe. There were ZERO deaths of civilians in the USA by Islamic terrorists each year since 9/11.

Some of the domestic terrorists in the USA have been Muslim - and we've seen the official stats on how many of these there are each year. If you wish to compare the numbers killed by shooters who are Christian vs those who are Muslim American - that's setting yourself a challenge you will run away from again.

Just last year in Tuscon, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (who happens to be Jewish) was shot in the head in a shooting that killed 6 civilians. The shooter was Christian. So that is 6 victims (including a child) in one incident. This is no different from the other shootings you want to label as 'terrorism'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

The Hutarree Christian terrorist group were caught and stopped before they could carry out their planned killings (and had more ammo all the 'jihadist' terrorists caught in the US since 9/11). And as we've seen over 90% of the actual terror attacks in the US have been from non-Muslim and largely domestic terrorists.

Now, let's see if you are (this time) going to debate or just troll. Should you choose the latter, you will have to resort to exchanging one-liners with others from the banned gang, as is happening in other threads.

Cheers,

Shafique

rayznack

The Hutarree Christian terrorist group were caught and stopped before they could carry out their planned killings (and had more ammo all the 'jihadist' terrorists caught in the US since 9/11). And as we've seen over 90% of the actual terror attacks in the US have been from non-Muslim and largely domestic terrorists.

What was that? Pontificating O Wise One?

On March 27, 2012, a federal judge acquitted seven Hutaree defendants of the most serious charges related to conspiracy and sedition; they were free to go. David Stone Sr. and Joshua Stone continued to be held on weapons-related charges.

Charges against the majority of the militia have been dropped, including the most serious offenses. Only weapons charges against two members remain.

You might want to know the facts ahead of time. Just saying.

Just last year in Tuscon, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (who happens to be Jewish) was shot in the head in a shooting that killed 6 civilians. The shooter was Christian. So that is 6 victims (including a child) in one incident. This is no different from the other shootings you want to label as 'terrorism'.

Except the shooter (who wasn't Christian) of Gabrielle Giffords wasn't labelled terrorism. As I already explained to you, the shooting spree of John Allen Muhammad and Nidal Hasan were terrorist attacks (the shooting of the Jewish Federation building was a hate crime).

So, we're down to 11 civilians killed by Muslim terrorists or one civilian (Michael Grant Cahill) killed by an Islamic terrorist (Nidal Hasan).

And I see you've avoided my question: How many civlians in the US have been killed by non-Muslim terrorists during the same time period?

shafique

Christian gunman shoots down 6 civilians, including a kid, whilst targetting a Jewish congresswoman. Targetted her because of her political views.

I simply pointed out

This is no different from the other shootings you want to label as 'terrorism'.

So, I'll leave you to add up how many more casualties of shootings were made by Christians to add to this count of 6, to compare with the 12 you've decided to focus on. (None of which are classified as vicitims of Islamic terrorists according to FBI). I find myself saying to you once again - I'm not going to do your homework.

I'm happy to trust the FBI stats on the issue - zero deaths of civilians by Islamic terrorists in the USA since 9/11.

As for the Hutaree terrorists - they and their kind still make up over 90% of terrorist stats in the USA according to the FBI. Nice of you to stick up for your friends though - Christian extremists sticking together is touching.

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

Christian gunman shoots down 6 civilians, including a kid, whilst targetting a Jewish congresswoman. Targetted her because of her political views.

Go ahead and show that Jared Loughner was a (a) Christian (b) targetting the senator due to her political views.

(None of which are classified as vicitims of Islamic terrorists according to FBI)

Really? I did not know the Fort Hood shooting was not classified as terrorism by the FBI. Care to prove that?

shafique

FBI states that zero US civilians have been killed by Islamic terrorists in the USA since 9/11. Your issue seems to be with their classification. Good luck with convincing them.

But you have come up with 11 or 12 killed by Muslim shooters in the US. I've countered with one incident of 6, including a child. There are many more than this out there.

So for me, I'm happy with the FBI classification, and statistics. You are free to continue to hype the mooslim threat etc.

As for Christian terrorists - you may want to revisit the topic of Christian Terrorism in the USA:
dubai-politics-talk/event-horizon-supporting-christian-terrorists-t49556.html

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

Go ahead and show zero civilians have been killed by Islamic terrorists in the US during the time period being looked at.

I'll even help you by providing the link to the NCTC report:

http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2010_report_on_terrorism.pdf

Perpetrators

Sunni extremists committed almost 60 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks. These
attacks caused approximately 70 percent of terrorism-related deaths, a significant
increase from the almost 62 percent in 2009. The following noteworthy attacks are
cataloged in WITS.

In the meantime, you can chew on this fact from the report itself (it's actually higher since Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan account for more than 60% of global terror attacks alone and for many attacks in those countries and elsewhere, attackers' identity was not conclusive)

shafique

I see you're avoiding the question about you not condemning Christian Terrorists in the USA. No surprises there.

Anyhow, I thought I would reply after all and give you the page numbers on the past two reports (the one you linked to and the one in the article in the OP):

Go ahead and show zero civilians have been killed by Islamic terrorists in the US

The answer is on pg 18. Zero deaths of civilians by Islamic terrorists in the US. QED

I'll say it again, your argument is with the FBI etc who compile the stats. Good luck with that.

If you had bothered to read the article, you'd have got a link to the 2011 report - and the number of civilians killed in the US by Islamic terrorists is still zero - says so on pg 17:
http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2011_NCTC_Annual_Report_Final.pdf

Here's a handy link to help you with some more material:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/02/new-york-times-article-understates-how-overstated-islamic-terrorism-threat-really-is/

(BTW - just because there are US troops in Afghanistan does not make it 'in the USA'! 😉 )

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

The Ft. Hood attack was carried out in 2009. Your civilian death count is from 2010.

Read the 2009 NCTC report and get back to me.

shafique

I see you're avoiding the question about you not condemning Christian Terrorists in the USA. No surprises there.

I'm going to get off the merry go round now - you linked to the 2010 report, that had zero civilian deaths by Islamic terrorists in the USA. I showed the same in the 2011 report.

You can look up the earlier years. The links to the reports are in the article in the OP:

The NCTC has released annual terrorism reports since 2005 (see: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011). Going through these, we find that in this entire seven year period, there were only two successful acts of Islamic terrorism inside the U.S. (the Little Rock recruiting office shooting and the Fort Hood Shooting). Both were against military targets: in the former, Carlos Bledsoe shot and killed a U.S. soldier outside an army recruiting center. In the latter, Major Nidal Hasan shot and killed 12 soldiers and one military-contracted ex-soldier on a military base.

In other words, at least since 2005, not a single civilian has been killed in the U.S. by Muslim terrorists.

Good luck.

But let me quote this bit from the original article - which calls into question the killings of civilians which are not labelled terrorism:

In the entire year of 2011, the Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies killed a combined total of 16 U.S. private civilians.

By way of comparison, note that in a single event in March of 2011, “n American soldier went on a house-to-house shooting spree in two villages…killing 16 people…four men, three women and nine children.”

Not surprisingly, this incident–clearly an act of terrorism if that word is to have any meaningful definition (although admittedly, it does not)–does not find its way into the NCTC report. This is because it’s only terrorism when our enemies (especially Muslims) do it.

The final word is one about the statistics:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the great threat of Islamic terrorism in the Western world: you are more likely to die from an allergic reaction to peanuts, being struck and killed by lightning, or being crushed to death by your television set than being killed by a Muslim terrorist.

Facts, not hype.

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

Let's see how bright you are: Bales' attack wasn't classified terrorist for the same reason Nordine Amrani's gun and grenade attack against civilians wasn't.

Oh, and the contractor was a civilian physician assistant.

shafique

Ok, mea culpa, you got me to post again - if only to refute your weak excuse of an argument.

1. Cahill was indeed ex-army (Chief Warrant Officer, retired) and employed by the army.

2. Bales was a soldier who shot up civilians. Not a terrorist according to the report. Nidal, was in the army too and shot up soldiers on a base in the US - but he's a terrorist. Nadal is as guilty as Bales and vice versa. Bales was arguably more horrific as he killed children and systematically went about the killing.

Amrani's shooting was in Beligium - and the Beligium authorities quickly stated that it was not terrorism. The FBI couldn't really go and call it terrorism once the Belgians had pronounced, could they!? I'd wager he'd be labelled a terrorist had he carried out the attacks in the US - like Nidal was.

Please see comment in post above about facts and hype. (And, does beg the question 'how bright are you?' 😀 )

Facts still remain - in the US you are more likely to die from a peanut allergy than from Islamic terrorism.

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

On 5 November 2009, at 1:30 PM, in Fort Hood, Texas, United States, an armed assailant entered the Fort Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center and opened fire, killing one civilian and 12 soldiers, wounding seven civilians, 17 soldiers, and 18 people, and damaging the facility. Civilian police officers from Fort Hood's Department of Emergency Services (DES) responded and the assailant fired upon them, wounding one police officer. No group claimed responsibility, although authorities believed an unaffiliated Sunni extremist was responsible.

p 61.

http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2009_report_on_terrorism.pdf

Now, to answer your weak argument - Bales did not fit the NCTC's definition of terrorism so, hence, he was not a terrorist. Nidal Hasan fit the report's definition of terrorist so he was classified as one. And of course the FBI can classify a violent individual from another country a terrorist if they chose to, despite that particular nation's classification - they include Palestinian terrorists in the report even though the Hamas government does not classify Palestinian terrorists as terrorists.

Just to prove my point, Naveed Haq's gun attack against a Jewish Federation building was not classified terrorism, despite Haq targeting the people because they were Jews.

shafique

Thanks for bumping the topic.

I refer you to the facts listed 1 and 2 in my last post - nothing in your post refuted these facts. You are attempting to construct strawmen, and failing.

I also refer you to the related topic of your support for Christian terrorists in the USA, which seems related to your agreement that Bales is not a terrorist but Nidal is - for carrying out exactly the same crime of shooting up unarmed people - (both were soldiers), after all. And just to be clear - either both are terrorists or both aren't. Hence the 'double standard' that the OP article is talking about. :

dubai-politics-talk/event-horizon-supporting-christian-terrorists-t49556.html

Should you wish to address this issue, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Else the evidence for the thread title has been provided - and the conclusion remains:

In the USA peanut allergies and falling furniture kill more people than 'Islamic terrorists'. Facts, no hype.

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

I also refer you to the related topic of your support for Christian terrorists in the USA, which seems related to your agreement that Bales is not a terrorist but Nidal is - for carrying out exactly the same crime of shooting up unarmed people - (both were soldiers), after all. And just to be clear - either both are terrorists or both aren't. Hence the 'double standard' that the OP article is talking about. :

Let's see how bright you are: Bales' attack wasn't classified terrorist for the same reason Nordine Amrani's gun and grenade attack against civilians wasn't.

School shootings should be classified as "terrorism" then; but let's not forget the NCTC has a working definition of terrorism to differentiate shootings from terrorism. Nidal met the definition of terrorism whereas Bales and school shooters did not.

Good luck with changing FBI's methodology.

So, for the thread roundup, the lie that there have been no civilian deaths from Islamic terror attacks in the US has been busted.

Another LoonWatch rag piece has been exposed.

shafique

^I note with amusement that you still haven't shown anything to contradict the facts I listed two posts ago. Thanks.

The OP is correct and the extent of 'Islamic Terrorism' in the USA bears no relation to the hype that your banned friends and you want to believe. Jihadwatch et al are exposed for their hysteria - the statistics are stark. That you're desperately trying to re-label one casualty shows the extent of your desperation.

The fact that you can't come out and condemn fellow American Christians who choose terrorism speaks far louder.

Your strawmen can't hide the fact you're still avoiding the elephant in the room:

I also refer you to the related topic of your support for Christian terrorists in the USA, which seems related to your agreement that Bales is not a terrorist but Nidal is - for carrying out exactly the same crime of shooting up unarmed people - (both were soldiers), after all. And just to be clear - either both are terrorists or both aren't. Hence the 'double standard' that the OP article is talking about. :

dubai-politics-talk/event-horizon-supporting-christian-terrorists-t49556.html

Should you wish to address this issue, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Else the evidence for the thread title has been provided - and the conclusion remains:

You may wish to look up what 'double standards' means and then try to explain in what way Nidal shooting innocent unarmed people is different from Bales shooting (and then burning) men, women and children in cold blood. If Bales' crime is not terrorism, then neither is Nidal's (and vice versa).

And the final fact remains:

In the USA peanut allergies and falling furniture kill more people than 'Islamic terrorists'. Facts, no hype.

I thank you for bumping the topic, again. I extend another invitation for you to address the issue above.

Cheers,
Shafique

rayznack

You may wish to look up what 'double standards' means and then try to explain in what way Nidal shooting innocent unarmed people is different from Bales shooting (and then burning) men, women and children in cold blood. If Bales' crime is not terrorism, then neither is Nidal's (and vice versa).

You may wish to look up the actual definition of terrorism used by the NCTC that would differentiate a crime from an act of terror.

As I said, you're not very bright; which explains the reason why you have not factored school shootings and Nordine Amrani's shooting rampage into your argument.

If you had, you'd see Nidal's act of shooting unarmed people is no different from Nordine Amrani's shooting unarmed people (or Naveed Haq's), despite the latter examples not being classified terrorist attacks.

Like hate crimes, terrorism has specific motives or circumstances which need to be met before the crime can be classified an act of terror.

Not very bright, you are.

Now, I've debunked your numerous claims in this article. I'll return if you have anything new to add or have become capable of forming a logical argument.

shafique

We have another thread where you have been invited to explain the difference between Bales' killing of women, children etc, and that of Nidal. In that thread we have the NCTC definition that can exclude acts of terrorism by serving US soldiers (especially if they attack non US citizens).

You have been asked to explain the difference in the crimes.

The silence is so far deafening.

This thread remains about the fact that in the USA more people are killed by peanut allergies or falling furniture than are killed by Islamic terrorists - at least since 9/11.

The strawmen you keep trying to distract us away from won't change the facts. Trolling is all you have left it seems.

But I am not surprised at your continued refusal to condemn fellow American Christians who commit acts of terror.

Cheers,

Shafique