Statistics show white supremacy a bigger threat than Johnny Jihad or terrorist

[Lakhota]

Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims

oh brother It's a free country I guess you can print what ya want.

Yep, the New York Times backs that up:

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11 - The New York Times

 

[Rotagilla]

Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims

oh brother It's a free country I guess you can print what ya want.

Yep, the New York Times backs that up:

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11 - The New York Times

oh, well..if the NY times said so..LMFAO..

anti white propaganda....

 

[Freiheit]

Something most important for all of us who are vets to remember. The government that put us in harms way for murky, at best, reasons and causes says we are the most dangerous members of society for becoming terrorists. Real thanks from Clinton and Obama.

 

[Correll]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Yes, I caught that too.

And the libs eat this shit up.

 

[Correll]

Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims

oh brother It's a free country I guess you can print what ya want.

Yep, the New York Times backs that up:

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11 - The New York Times

oh, well..if the NY times said so..LMFAO..

anti white propaganda....

The NEw York Times has let their lib bias over rule and professional ethnics long ago, and often.

I note that Lakhota is unable to address the fact that any non muslims is lumped in with white supremacists.

 

[Rotagilla]

Statistics Show White Supremacy is a Bigger Threat to the U.S. Than Radical Muslims

oh brother It's a free country I guess you can print what ya want.

Yep, the New York Times backs that up:

Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11 - The New York Times

oh, well..if the NY times said so..LMFAO..

anti white propaganda....

The NEw York Times has let their lib bias over rule and professional ethnics long ago, and often.

I note that Lakhota is unable to address the fact that any non muslims is lumped in with white supremacists.

it's all psyops

operation mockingbird.

 

[Preacher]

Obama Government Lists 72 Types of Americans It Considers "Extremists / Potential Terrorists"

 

[Preacher]

This is their "references" any more information needed to see that the US government IS the enemy?
They take the words of Jewish anti white anti male anti constitution groups as to what an extremist is.

The following references are additional sources for current extremism information:
•
Anti-Defamation League - www.adl.org
•
Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism - www.hatemonitor.csusb.edu
•
Know Gangs - www.knowgangs.com
•
Political Research Associates - www.publiceye.org
•
Southern Poverty Law Center - www.splcenter.org
•
Teaching Tolerance - www.tolerance.org

 

[Preacher]

Hell I fit I would say 75% of those things the government considers a "threat" I bet everyone here fits at LEAST 1.

 

[Rotagilla]

Hell I fit I would say 75% of those things the government considers a "threat" I bet everyone here fits at LEAST 1.

that's the point, isn't it? criminalize everyone...

 

[Preacher]

Hell I fit I would say 75% of those things the government considers a "threat" I bet everyone here fits at LEAST 1.

that's the point, isn't it? criminalize everyone...

Easier to feed it to the dumbed down american public to think there is a great big criminal conspiracy and they need to take all the guns and throw all these bad people in prison cells.

 

[Coyote]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

 

[Rotagilla]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

disinformation and anti white propaganda...

EDIT;

Read it as many times as you need to.

at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists


..It doesn't say they grouped ALL non muslim attacks....it says OTHER non muslim attacks...so, like I said and they admit, they selectively chose ones to attribute to "white supremacists" that were by OTHER "non muslim extremists"...why are you trying to distort what is right there in black and white?

purposeful anti white disinformation

 

[Pogo]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

disinformation and anti white propaganda...

EDIT;

Read it as many times as you need to.

at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists


..It doesn't say they grouped ALL non muslim attacks....it says OTHER non muslim attacks...so, like I said and they admit, they selectively chose ones to attribute to "white supremacists" that were by OTHER "non muslim extremists"...why are you trying to distort what is right there in black and white?

purposeful anti white disinformation

Read your own quote -- you've had two swings at it and missed it both times:

"white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists"....

Two entities:
1. White supremacists
2. Other non-Muslim extremists ('other' meaning also not-white supremacists)

--- it's got nothing to do with anybody's race.
"White supremacists" is one example, albeit a prominent one, of the greater set of attackers who are non-Muslims. Whether the latter are white supremacists or not.

 

[Correll]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

That is not what your cut and paste says.

NOr what the thread title says.

They lumped in all non-muslim attacks WITH white supremacist so that they could have a number as big as possible, and then exaggerate the danger from white supremacist and minimize the danger from muslims.

 

[Correll]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

disinformation and anti white propaganda...

EDIT;

Read it as many times as you need to.

at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists


..It doesn't say they grouped ALL non muslim attacks....it says OTHER non muslim attacks...so, like I said and they admit, they selectively chose ones to attribute to "white supremacists" that were by OTHER "non muslim extremists"...why are you trying to distort what is right there in black and white?

purposeful anti white disinformation

Read your own quote -- you've had two swings at it and missed it both times:

"white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists"....

Two entities:
1. White supremacists
2. Other non-Muslim extremists ('other' meaning also not-white supremacists)

--- it's got nothing to do with anybody's race.
"White supremacists" is one example, albeit a prominent one, of the greater set of attackers who are non-Muslims. Whether the latter are white supremacists or not.

And then that take the sum of THOSE TWO NUMBERS, one of which is basically all other numbers of attacks and compare it to the number of muslims attacks.

And the thread title, does it mention that "and other" part of that number?

THis is classic "lying with statistics".


Wake up.

 

[Mac1958]

Wow, a whole thread spinning for the PC-protected religion, cool.

 

[Rotagilla]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

That is not what your cut and paste says.

NOr what the thread title says.

They lumped in all non-muslim attacks WITH white supremacist so that they could have a number as big as possible, and then exaggerate the danger from white supremacist and minimize the danger from muslims.

precisely....

 

[Pogo]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

disinformation and anti white propaganda...

EDIT;

Read it as many times as you need to.

at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists


..It doesn't say they grouped ALL non muslim attacks....it says OTHER non muslim attacks...so, like I said and they admit, they selectively chose ones to attribute to "white supremacists" that were by OTHER "non muslim extremists"...why are you trying to distort what is right there in black and white?

purposeful anti white disinformation

Read your own quote -- you've had two swings at it and missed it both times:

"white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists"....

Two entities:
1. White supremacists
2. Other non-Muslim extremists ('other' meaning also not-white supremacists)

--- it's got nothing to do with anybody's race.
"White supremacists" is one example, albeit a prominent one, of the greater set of attackers who are non-Muslims. Whether the latter are white supremacists or not.

And then that take the sum of THOSE TWO NUMBERS, one of which is basically all other numbers of attacks and compare it to the number of muslims attacks.

And the thread title, does it mention that "and other" part of that number?

THis is classic "lying with statistics".


Wake up.

Ummm.... I'm not responsible for whatever the thread title is, nor is the article author. I quoted what's actually *IN* the article. And it isn't about race. This just in -- "Muslim" isn't a "race".

Learn to read.

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

That is not what your cut and paste says.

NOr what the thread title says.

They lumped in all non-muslim attacks WITH white supremacist so that they could have a number as big as possible, and then exaggerate the danger from white supremacist and minimize the danger from muslims.

umm... white supremacist attacks ARE non-Muslim attacks. Hence the words "and other".

What exactly is the issue you're trying so hard to invent here?

 

[Correll]

What a load of BS this whole "study" is.

The New York Times reported back in June that since Sept. 11, 2001, almost twice as many people have died at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims. Using data compiled by New America, a Washington Research center, a study found that 48 people have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim


So, conveniently, in order to skew the data to fit their agenda, they arbitrarily decide to include everyone who is a "non muslim extremist" as a "white supremacist"..
propaganda and word games...same as usual...

Actually no, they didn't. They selected out those which were confirmed to be far rightwing/white supremist. If they labeled all non-Muslim attacks as white supremist the difference would be even more striking.

disinformation and anti white propaganda...

EDIT;

Read it as many times as you need to.

at the hands of white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists


..It doesn't say they grouped ALL non muslim attacks....it says OTHER non muslim attacks...so, like I said and they admit, they selectively chose ones to attribute to "white supremacists" that were by OTHER "non muslim extremists"...why are you trying to distort what is right there in black and white?

purposeful anti white disinformation

Read your own quote -- you've had two swings at it and missed it both times:

"white supremacists and other non-Muslim extremists"....

Two entities:
1. White supremacists
2. Other non-Muslim extremists ('other' meaning also not-white supremacists)

--- it's got nothing to do with anybody's race.
"White supremacists" is one example, albeit a prominent one, of the greater set of attackers who are non-Muslims. Whether the latter are white supremacists or not.

And then that take the sum of THOSE TWO NUMBERS, one of which is basically all other numbers of attacks and compare it to the number of muslims attacks.

And the thread title, does it mention that "and other" part of that number?

THis is classic "lying with statistics".


Wake up.

Ummm.... I'm not responsible for whatever the thread title is, nor is the article author. I quoted what's actually *IN* the article.

Learn to read.

Are you not defending the article and it's conclusion, that the Thread title is based on?

If not, you are very poorly communicating your intent.