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

[Pogo]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

 

[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

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

 

[Pogo]

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

 

[Rotagilla]

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

 

[Correll]

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

Except those that are Willful Dupes because it serves the lib agenda.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

 

[Kondor3]

...anti white propaganda..

Something that self-loathing shit-stirring LibTards seem to excel at...

 

[Pogo]

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.

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?

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

 

[Correll]

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.

Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.

As was pretty obvious from the OP.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

Okay ---- where does it do that?

 

[Rotagilla]

hahahaha..they're clearly, purposely skewing the numbers by including ANYTHING that isn't a "muslim" attack as a "white supremacist" attack... no one is fooled by these semantic distortions....

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal

said bill;
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..

the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...

 

[Pogo]

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

When they lump others in with White Supremacist to make their point.

Than they are not treating others as others but as part of the another group.

As was pretty obvious from the OP.

Holy shit it's pea-soup dense in here...

When you say "white supremacist groups and other non-Muslim extremists" .... which is in fact what it does say.... then you have TWO different entities.

Not one -- TWO.

TWO entites that are not related. Apples plus oranges equals one group of fruit.

This is basic Engrish, dood.

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

Okay ---- where does it do that?

" 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—including the mass killings in Charleston, S.C.—compared to the 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists. "

 

[Pogo]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

Okay ---- where does it do that?

" 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—including the mass killings in Charleston, S.C.—compared to the 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists. "

..... and?

Is 48 not "almost twice as many" as 26?

My handy abacus tells me half of 48 is 24....

 

[Pogo]

That STILL isn't what the article says. Never has been. Do the words "and other" just not show up on your screen?

I don't get why you're trying to plug something in that isn't there. What's the point?

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal


Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..

the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...

The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.

You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

Okay ---- where does it do that?

" 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—including the mass killings in Charleston, S.C.—compared to the 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists. "

..... and?

Is 48 not "almost twice as many" as 26?

Yep. and they clearly state that number comes from "extremists who are not Muslim" ie White Supremacists AND OTHERS lumped together and compared to the number killed "by self-proclaimed jihadists"

 

[Pogo]

I'm not "defending" shit. Are you "defending" white supremacy?

This isn't my thread or my title. Titles are irrelevant, as they're often misleading. I'm reading what the words in the article say, and noting what they don't say.

I don't grasp what it is you're trying to plug in here.

Then please inform us what your point of posting here is.

Because the article did lie with stats as I said.

Okay ---- where does it do that?

" 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—including the mass killings in Charleston, S.C.—compared to the 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists. "

..... and?

Is 48 not "almost twice as many" as 26?

Yep. and they clearly state that number comes from "extremists who are not Muslim" ie White Supremacists AND OTHERS lumped together and compared to the number killed "by self-proclaimed jihadists"

Right.....

again... AND?? How is that "lying with statistics"?

How?

 

[Rotagilla]

"...and other..." are weasel words so they can purposely mischaracterize ANY attacks that aren't "muslim" as "white supremacist"...

LMAO..you really gonna run with that? So EVERY crime committed in the us that wasn't by confirmed muslims, was therefore committed by "white supremacists"..too funny!

pogo..you're a hyperpartisan and I understand you have a lot of ego involved in supporting the admin, but this is so blatantly obvious that all the equivocating you can cook up can't hide it.

Might as well say that all white crimes will now be included as black crime data too since it was committed by blacks "and others"...LMAO..

it's fraudulent and anti white propaganda.

How many posts in a row are you going to continue to not read the content?

It's NOT a contrast between (a) "Muslims" and (b) "white supremacists". It simply does not say that. Never did. Pretending it does say that --- when the words plainly contradict that pretense --- just isn't honest.

I'm still asking what the point is of this fake point ---- just to somehow twist this into a racial thing?

And who the hell is "the admin"?

never said it "contrasted"...

I said they are purposely mischaracterizing any "others" as "white supremacists" so they can inflate the "stats".....don't try to play word games with me...it never works out well for you...

And the big dig continues. When exactly is "others" not "others"? Is there another other other than other?

You do understand what "other" means? As in "not including"... as in "besides"?

What exactly is the point of pretending other doesn't mean "other"? What else can it mean?

oh stop..you sound like a 1st year law student trying to play word games....reminds me of clinton playing word games and trying to weasel out of the lewinsky scandal


Other does NOT mean "any OTHER crimes we can think of to blame on "white supremacists"..

the article and the premise is fraudulent and its only purpose is to disparage white people...

The article doesn't even mention "white people". Nor does it mention "black people" or "brown people" or race at all, except in the context of "white supremacist groups" -- which is an ideological agenda.

You sure are bending over backward to insert a racial component to a story that doesn't have one. Why the obsession?

it blames "white supremacists", pogo, and you know it...you're being purposely obtuse and trying to muddy up clear water because that's the only way you can pretend not to understand...