Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

#303
#303
n_huffhines said:
He may happen to be right, but I wouldn't say vindicated. Jumping to conclusions the way he did is risky and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but the circumstantial evidence is suspicious to say the least. I had the same gut instinct he did in regards to terrorism.
 
#310
#310
Toujours Pret said:
Since muslims=terrorists, duh. But I'll play, what statistics support that an airliner crash is likely terrorism, since the stats are on his side?
Click to expand...

It crashed.

Have you not kept up with this?

Muslim=terrorists- is in your mind. Not mine. Don't presume to know so. Or for that matter any other poster.

We are all going off what Intel is available

Relax
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#312
#312
Obsessed said:
It crashed.

Have you not kept up with this?

Muslim=terrorists- is in your mind. Not mine. Don't presume to know so. Or for that matter any other poster.

We are all going off what Intel is available

Relax
Click to expand...
n_huffhines said:
He may happen to be right, but I wouldn't say vindicated. Jumping to conclusions the way he did is risky and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

In reference to Maverick, to which you answered
"Statistics were on his side, not that risky a move"

Statistics supporting what?
 
#315
#315
McDad said:
All the stereotyping going on up I here and nobody has asked if it was asians driving the plane?

That should be the first question after an accident.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I worked for Yamaha and the mantra was"never let the Japanese drive the boat".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#322
#322
lawgator1 said:
That wasn't your question.

Didn't like the answer, did you?
Click to expand...




Since January, 2010 the Islamic propaganda outlet Loonwatch.com has prominently posted an article with the title "All Terrorists are Muslim… except the 94% that aren’t."* Although not saying exactly who it is that believes "all terrorists are Muslim", the gist of the piece is that an FBI report from seven years ago concluded that the vast majority of attacks have nothing to do with Islam.*



Loonwatch is playing a couple of tricks here - the biggest being that they are drawing on domestic data only.* In other words, when they say that 94% of terrorists aren't Muslim, they actually mean in the United States, where terror attacks are relatively rare and Muslims make up only 1% of the population.*

So, if we ignore the overwhelming bulk of attacks across the globe, Muslims are "only" six times more likely to commit acts of terror than the general population.* The numbers for Loonwatch get even worse on closer examination.


As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy.* While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

When Americans hear the word 'terrorism', however, what comes to mind isn't vandalism, but rather those acts of genuine violence that are intended to cause loss of life.* So, how do we focus on these incidents and filter out the rest?

TheReligionofPeace - Loonwatch and the Non-Muslim Terrorist
 
#324
#324
volmaverick said:
Since January, 2010 the Islamic propaganda outlet Loonwatch.com has prominently posted an article with the title "All Terrorists are Muslim… except the 94% that aren’t."* Although not saying exactly who it is that believes "all terrorists are Muslim", the gist of the piece is that an FBI report from seven years ago concluded that the vast majority of attacks have nothing to do with Islam.*



Loonwatch is playing a couple of tricks here - the biggest being that they are drawing on domestic data only.* In other words, when they say that 94% of terrorists aren't Muslim, they actually mean in the United States, where terror attacks are relatively rare and Muslims make up only 1% of the population.*

So, if we ignore the overwhelming bulk of attacks across the globe, Muslims are "only" six times more likely to commit acts of terror than the general population.* The numbers for Loonwatch get even worse on closer examination.


As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy.* While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

When Americans hear the word 'terrorism', however, what comes to mind isn't vandalism, but rather those acts of genuine violence that are intended to cause loss of life.* So, how do we focus on these incidents and filter out the rest?

TheReligionofPeace - Loonwatch and the Non-Muslim Terrorist
Click to expand...



Top flight source you got there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top