Trends in terrorism

[The Stormbringer]

@zenkai I'm literally calling for shades of gray in terms of response and you call me a 'black and white thinker'. I think we're done here.

[Malaky]

@zenkai I'm literally calling for shades of gray in terms of response and you call me a 'black and white thinker'. I think we're done here.

They're different opinions.
I'm more concerned about widespread justification for political violence than a few lunatic extremists building bombs in their mountain cottages.

[JohnBrown1917]

@zenkai I'm literally calling for shades of gray in terms of response and you call me a 'black and white thinker'. I think we're done here.

If anybody thinks like that, its Zenkai, by implying all sorts of violence is equally bad, always.

[Forogil]

Basically, the IRA, ETA and a few others killed way more people in Europe than Islamic terrorism ever did, even if you include the outliers like Madrid, London and Paris.

It depends on how you look at it, "few others" is hiding that it isn't that simple.

During the 70s and 80s it wasn't just IRA and ETA, but also Palestinian and Libyan terrorists, possibly proto-Al-Qaeda, and if including traveling to Europe also the Sikhs (1985 - 329 killed; not included in that list - and Sikhs are of course a different religion). And also right-wing terrorists (left-wing terrorism was popular before that chart).

For the attacks listed on the chart the responsible are: Munich - "Black September" a Palestinian organization, Bologna - neofascists, Munich right-wing, Lockerbie - Libya, etc.

However, Palestinian organizations are often not classified as "Islamic terrorism" but as "separatist terrorism" (same as ETA/IRA - it's just that separatism is related to something outside of Europe); and some of the Palestinian terrorists were fairly secular (others less so). Libya under Khaddaffi was modernist islamism.

But Islamic terrorist attacks are a big problem... in the Middle East:

Well, centered around the middle east; since Africa - and India is normally not part of the "middle east". Many of the victims are also muslims.

[Freighter]

You’re Korean. There are areas where you don’t want to go else you’d be a victim of far right whites.

Where? How many? Don't get me wrong, they could hurt people but I simply do not believe it to be as widespread as people on internet like to claim it is. Especially not when an increase from to 3 to 17 deaths is portrayed as some sort of apocalypse in the making.

[Mormolyce]

It depends on how you look at it, "few others" is hiding that it isn't that simple.

During the 70s and 80s it wasn't just IRA and ETA, but also Palestinian and Libyan terrorists, possibly proto-Al-Qaeda, and if including traveling to Europe also the Sikhs (1985 - 329 killed; not included in that list - and Sikhs are of course a different religion). And also right-wing terrorists (left-wing terrorism was popular before that chart).

For the attacks listed on the chart the responsible are: Munich - "Black September" a Palestinian organization, Bologna - neofascists, Munich right-wing, Lockerbie - Libya, etc.

However, Palestinian organizations are often not classified as "Islamic terrorism" but as "separatist terrorism" (same as ETA/IRA - it's just that separatism is related to something outside of Europe); and some of the Palestinian terrorists were fairly secular (others less so). Libya under Khaddaffi was modernist islamism.

Not really:


https://www.datagraver.com/case/peop...rope-1970-2015

I'm sure I saw a full breakdown somewhere, can't find it now. But it's mostly IRA and ETA. The Troubles were bad, ma dude.

Well, centered around the middle east; since Africa - and India is normally not part of the "middle east". Many of the victims are also muslims.

Yes, I should've said around the Middle East I suppose.

[Forogil]

Not really:


https://www.datagraver.com/case/peop...rope-1970-2015

I'm sure I saw a full breakdown somewhere, can't find it now. But it's mostly IRA and ETA. The Troubles were bad, ma dude.

That graph just illustrates the issue I was discussing - and any time you see "other" that dominant you should look closer.

If you look closer you see that:
Abu Nidal (a Palestinian organization) killed 88 persons in a bombing in Greece in 1974, and 60+23 in Malta and Italy in 1985. (The Islamic terrorism in 1985 is likely the proto-al-Qaeda attack in Madrid.)
PFLP-GC (another Palestinian organization) killed 47 persons in 1970.
Libya killed 270 above and in Lockerbie in 1988 (explaining that peak).
All of that is included in the "other" category in your graph.

I recall there was a detailed list earlier and the majority wasn't IRA and ETA, but the more general "separatist category", which includes not only IRA and ETA but also Palestinians and Libyans.

The troubles primarily stand out in number of attacks, not deaths. (Not implying that it was good, or the number of lives lost was small.)

[Knolan]

Any terrorism is bad, that includes antifa, right wing, Islamic or any other.

Making excuses for any means you are not against it as a tactic, only against who is using our suffering it.

Also let's not forget that there were several plots stopped, many at the cost of lost privacy. And also, many incidents were downplayed, like the London bridge incidents and the stabbing in Amsterdam Central station (that a lot of people is not even aware).

[Mormolyce]

That graph just illustrates the issue I was discussing - and any time you see "other" that dominant you should look closer.

If you look closer you see that:
Abu Nidal (a Palestinian organization) killed 88 persons in a bombing in Greece in 1974, and 60+23 in Malta and Italy in 1985. (The Islamic terrorism in 1985 is likely the proto-al-Qaeda attack in Madrid.)
PFLP-GC (another Palestinian organization) killed 47 persons in 1970.
Libya killed 270 above and in Lockerbie in 1988 (explaining that peak).
All of that is included in the "other" category in your graph.

I recall there was a detailed list earlier and the majority wasn't IRA and ETA, but the more general "separatist category", which includes not only IRA and ETA but also Palestinians and Libyans.

The troubles primarily stand out in number of attacks, not deaths. (Not implying that it was good, or the number of lives lost was small.)

Classifying Israeli-Palestinian violence as Islamic extremism is like calling the IRA Christian extremism.

Let me settle this. You can download the GTD here:
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/contact/

I took the years 1970-1990. The IRA makes up 33% of the total alone, and it's over 50% if you include all Northern Ireland related terror attacks. ETA is another 11%. The largest Palestinian group, PFLP (which again I don't agree should be categorised as "Islamic extremism"), is only ~3%. All those groups together are what, less than 10% of the total?



- - - Updated - - -

Any terrorism is bad, that includes antifa, right wing, Islamic or any other.

Making excuses for any means you are not against it as a tactic, only against who is using our suffering it.

State sponsored is totally okay though

[Forogil]

Classifying Israeli-Palestinian violence as Islamic extremism is like calling the IRA Christian extremism.

I didn't write the first statement, I just wanted to emphasize that having Palestinians and Libyans as part "non-Islamic terrorism" is also misleading - especially if grouped as part of "others" in "IRA, ETA and others".

Or similarly to use the same statistics to downplay left-wing terrorism when many IRA were left-wing, and some far-left (I assume some other parties of separatist conflicts were far right).
I'm not saying that calling them "left-wing" would be better, just that I can see when someone uses statistics to disguise facts behind labels.

I took the years 1970-1990. The IRA makes up 33% of the total alone, and it's over 50% if you include all Northern Ireland related terror attacks. ETA is another 11%. The largest Palestinian group, PFLP (which again I don't agree should be categorised as "Islamic extremism"), is only ~3%. All those groups together are what, less than 10% of the total?

The less than 10% is not that accurate.

And first a complaint about cherry-picking: you previously had a graph 1970-2017 where Islamic terrorism was more pronounced after 1990, and now you use statistics from 1970-1990.

And apart from the known Palestinian groups - you have 11% labelled as "unknown"; and that seems to include Libyan terrorism in Lockerbie 1988 - since it is 5.3% of total and cannot be found anywhere else, and likely the proto-al-Qaeda attack in Spain 1985 (just 0.4% or so).

[Mormolyce]

The less than 10% is not that accurate.

And first a complaint about cherry-picking: you previously had a graph 1970-2017 where Islamic terrorism was more pronounced after 1990, and now you use statistics from 1970-1990.

And apart from the known Palestinian groups - you have 11% labelled as "unknown"; and that seems to include Libyan terrorism in Lockerbie 1988 - since it is 5.3% of total and cannot be found anywhere else, and likely the proto-al-Qaeda attack in Spain 1985 (just 0.4% or so).

The stats are for 1970-2017, you were disputing how much of the violence in the 70s and 80s was IRA/ETA vs. Islamic extremism. So I chose 1970-1990. Seriously, you're not even following the thread of the argument here.

I did not label these as "unknown", that's how they are classified in the database. If you would like to do your own analysis, I provided you with a link.

Frankly your reply here is lazy and consists of quibbles. I've adequately demonstrated the point.

[Knolan]

Classifying Israeli-Palestinian violence as Islamic extremism is like calling the IRA Christian extremism.

Let me settle this. You can download the GTD here:
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/contact/

I took the years 1970-1990. The IRA makes up 33% of the total alone, and it's over 50% if you include all Northern Ireland related terror attacks. ETA is another 11%. The largest Palestinian group, PFLP (which again I don't agree should be categorised as "Islamic extremism"), is only ~3%. All those groups together are what, less than 10% of the total?



- - - Updated - - -



State sponsored is totally okay though

Terrorism and war are completely different things.

I do not necessarily support or oppose war (it is different for each war and mostly much more gray than people care to admit).

[Deletedaccount1]

I don't think the far right's main concern is that Muslim immigration might cause terrorism. Their main concern is that you can walk outside in cities like Marseille and Brussels and not be able to tell if you are actually in Istanbul or Khartoum.

[Mormolyce]

Terrorism and war are completely different things.

I do not necessarily support or oppose war (it is different for each war and mostly much more gray than people care to admit).

State sponsored terrorism isn't the same thing as war either.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the far right's main concern is that Muslim immigration might cause terrorism. Their main concern is that you can walk outside in cities like Marseille and Brussels and not be able to tell if you are actually in Istanbul or Khartoum.

I think I could probably tell lol.

[Red Panda]

Something to read about global terrorism trends in 2018 - http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uplo...dex-2018-1.pdf

Some of the interesting parts:

"This is the third consecutive year that number of
deaths from terrorism has decreased. Deaths are
now 44 per cent below their peak in 2014.

Despite the fall in deaths, the number of incidents
rose in Western Europe. Increased counter-terrorism
spending and security measures have reduced the
lethality of attacks."

So despite the doomsayers of the internet saying that Europe will soon be destroyed by islamist terrorists, the trend doesn't seem to support that claim.

"Far-right terrorism is a growing concern. The
number of deaths from terrorism associated with
far-right groups and individuals has increased from
three in 2014, to 17 in 2017."

No surprise here, but it's nice to see some confirmation about the rising threat of the far right. "B-but Antifa?!", right?

17 deaths? That's like a casual friday in mexico/brazil/middle east/china. Looks like its time to step it up evil white middle income nazi's, you are putting up baby numbers.

[Rysthruun]

Something to read about global terrorism trends in 2018 - http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uplo...dex-2018-1.pdf

Some of the interesting parts:

"This is the third consecutive year that number of
deaths from terrorism has decreased. Deaths are
now 44 per cent below their peak in 2014.

Despite the fall in deaths, the number of incidents
rose in Western Europe. Increased counter-terrorism
spending and security measures have reduced the
lethality of attacks."

So despite the doomsayers of the internet saying that Europe will soon be destroyed by islamist terrorists, the trend doesn't seem to support that claim.

"Far-right terrorism is a growing concern. The
number of deaths from terrorism associated with
far-right groups and individuals has increased from
three in 2014, to 17 in 2017."

No surprise here, but it's nice to see some confirmation about the rising threat of the far right. "B-but Antifa?!", right?

I don't think people were really making an argument that Europe would fall to Islamic terrorism so much as Islamic rule. That is definitely a possibility in a few generations given current demographic information. I wouldn't put much faith in statistics related to terrorism or crime given that European leadership has abandoned empirical data gathering.



I don't think far right terrorism is a thing to be really be afraid of now or even for that matter worth mentioning in a conversation of current day events. It does however pose a threat, presumably, in the future if current political trends continue to progress.

[floppydk]

Something to read about global terrorism trends in 2018 - http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uplo...dex-2018-1.pdf

Some of the interesting parts:

"This is the third consecutive year that number of
deaths from terrorism has decreased. Deaths are
now 44 per cent below their peak in 2014.

Despite the fall in deaths, the number of incidents
rose in Western Europe. Increased counter-terrorism
spending and security measures have reduced the
lethality of attacks."

So despite the doomsayers of the internet saying that Europe will soon be destroyed by islamist terrorists, the trend doesn't seem to support that claim.

"Far-right terrorism is a growing concern. The
number of deaths from terrorism associated with
far-right groups and individuals has increased from
three in 2014, to 17 in 2017."

No surprise here, but it's nice to see some confirmation about the rising threat of the far right. "B-but Antifa?!", right?

There are more ways to destroy a country than just explosives. But of course all those tactics may be beyond comprehension for the base model CNNPC. Maybe you'll branch away from your safe space and educate yourself, but like most leftist cucks... I won't hold my breath.

[Forogil]

The stats are for 1970-2017, you were disputing how much of the violence in the 70s and 80s was IRA/ETA vs. Islamic extremism.

I wasn't disputing how much IRA/ETA did, but stating that groups from Islamic background (not necessarily in the name of Islam) were significantly higher than your chart showed before 1990, when you say about 10% were Palestinian terrorism and I can see that at least 6% Libyan and al-Qaeda.

I did not label these as "unknown", that's how they are classified in the database.

Stop blaming others for not checking the data you use.

I stated that Lockerbie was done by Libyans (as found in a court of law) - and it was clearly part of "Unknown" in your data-set. It's likely that it originally was "Unknown" and they haven't updated old attacks with new information.

[Mormolyce]

I wasn't disputing how much IRA/ETA did, but stating that groups from Islamic background (not necessarily in the name of Islam) were significantly higher than your chart showed before 1990, when you say about 10% were Palestinian terrorism and I can see that at least 6% Libyan and al-Qaeda.


Stop blaming others for not checking the data you use.

I stated that Lockerbie was done by Libyans (as found in a court of law) - and it was clearly part of "Unknown" in your data-set. It's likely that it originally was "Unknown" and they haven't updated old attacks with new information.

Now you're conflating Islamic terrorism with terrorism committed by people with an "Islamic background", which is fundamentally disingenuous. Again, by that logic all the IRA violence is terrorism with a Christian background. It's just a misrepresentation of the reality.

And besides, even if it weren't, what would any of this do to help your point? You're nitpicking at best.

Sorry, your objections have been systematically debunked and you have no leg to stand on here.

[Forogil]

Now you're conflating Islamic terrorism with terrorism committed by people with an "Islamic background", which is fundamentally disingenuous.

No, my point from the beginning is that downplaying Islamic terrorism by saying that "IRA, ETA and a few others killed way more people in Europe than Islamic terrorism ever did" as you did - is misleading when a substantial fraction "a few others" are terrorist from an Islamic background - many with a (moderate) Islamic agenda.

Again, by that logic all the IRA violence is terrorism with a Christian background.

If someone stated that Christian terrorism was only a tiny fraction of terrorism and instead stated that "others" were the majority, and ignored that some IRA were Christian-based, that would be a valid criticism.

However, no-one is making that point - or in summary: Sorry, your objections have been systematically debunked and you have no leg to stand on here.

Similarly if someone claimed that left-wing terrorism is tiny threat - and ignored that ETA and some IRA were leftish (including some extreme-left) that would also be a valid criticism.