Elucidator wrote:
That’s an interesting thing about liberals. They make up lies, then convince themselves it’s the truth. I never cited Newsbusters. Never been to the site until SOMEONE ELSE cited it. $500 to the first liberal who can find a post by me citing Newsbusters. :rolleyes:
Put up or shut up time, Elucidator.
One time I thought I saw the Virgin Mary floating before me, but it was only just an eye booger.
What, brag on what an internet wizard I am? Well, it goes against my natural modesty and genial good nature, but seeings as its you…
See, first off you gave a very specific number. 16,799 acts of Islamic terror since 9/11. Very specific. Probably wouldn’t have worked with “around 17,000”, but no.
So where does this come from, I wonder. Wonder, wonder. Ponder, ponder. Guessing its some rightarded site, some of which I get linked to by lefties offering mockery and disdain. Anyway, so I check around, figuring you must have either a) gotten it from somewhere or b)pulled the numbers out of your ass. Well, if its the first one, it will leave some sort of spoor out there on the interwebs.
Google is my slave.
Tappity tappity, Bob’s your uncle, and lo and behold, the only…only!..reference to 16,799 acts of Islamic terror is found on Newsbuster. Now, at this point, I took a few seconds some hearty laughter. What a maroon, I said, chortling. Fucking Newsbusters, the *National Enquirer *of the rightarded.
A bit disappointed when I read the article, kinda weak tea for the hysterical Newsbusters, but then it occurs to me. Its not even in the article, its in the comments, where drooling dimwits post commentary. Not even as much cred as Newsbusters might have, just some guy on the net posting a comment. And the wording, you will note, is very nearly identical to yours!
Its the ol’ cut and paste, ain’t it? And its not even an article in a rag, its a fuciking comment on an article in a rag! And this, this you offer to us as fact.
Quelle pathetique! That’s French for “What a Ricky Retardo!”. Or maybe not.
Pointless bit of fun, really. Ask for a cite, you wouldn’t have given one, so I found where you got this little shitty nugget of “information”.
Thanks for asking!
Elucitard wrote:
Look moron. We know you’re stupid beyond words. Now we know you’re illiterate and suffer from attention deficit disorder. Why? Because I have posted the citation for that number more than 3 times already, and they all pointed to the same source:
This is the ONLY website or citation I have ever cited for that number. I have NEVER cited Newsbusters. As are all of your kind, you are fucking stupid. I mean stupid on a level that words cannot describe. Attention deficit disorder does not explain it. Mere stupidity does not explain it. Illiteracy does not explain it. No, it is the nature of liberals to have a mental illness that forces them to make up reality in their heads as they go along. And the freak show inside their heads never mirrors true reality as sane people experience it.
Now either go find where I EVER cited Newsbusters, a site I never knew existed before you or one of your fucktard clones here posted it, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
This is a public outing between me and Elucitard. One of us is a liar. One of us can’t get his facts straight. One of us is a fucktard. The challenge is this…Elucitard repeatedly claimed that I cited Newsbusters, I said this is false. It’s all public record. So, now is the “shit or get the fuck off the pot” time. Elucitard needs to do one of two things. Either show where I cited Newsbusters when writing about the (now) 16,809 acts of Islamic terror (there were 10 new attacks since I last cited that website) or admit that you are a fucking idiot. One or the other. Now go do it.
End note: Elucitard babbled on for 317 words, carrying on and on and ranting and raving like the fucking lunatic he is, condemning me for citing a source that in reality I never cited. Typical stupid liberal fucktard!
dons his best French beret
Cro-magnon here is a male, so you must use the masculine form: quel, not quelle.
However, “pathétique” is an adjective, not a noun, so you can’t say “Quel pathétique !” at all. If you wish to express a general dismissal, say “Tout celà est pathétique” (This is all just pathetic). A more direct fuck you will need the form: “Cro-magnon, tu es vraiment pathétique” (Cro-magnon, you’re really pathetic)
Understand ? Now copy that a hundred times. If it’s not done by sunrise I’ll cut your balls off.
Where on that site does it give the specific number of 16,799?
(Note: I am not in any way suggesting that “Religion of Peace” is a valid source for citations.)
How many times do you have to be told that a bigoted pile of manure like that site does not constitute an authoritative/credible cite?
The number is updated periodically. To be fair, C-o-T has already mentioned that the number has incremented since he first posted the figure in question.
As the displayed number appears to be either generated by a script or is a graphic, and is not HTML text, I’m presuming that’s why it didn’t show up in a Google search, but that’s just a guess. In this particular case, The Obnoxious One appears to have a point, although I seriously doubt that Elucidator was deliberately lying about anything here.
Now, as to why C-o-T seems to uncritically accept that number as accurate, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, now I see it. Thanks for the clarification. As for the uncritical acceptance… well, he doesn’t seem to have an understanding of how and why you take knowledge on authority. “Because it agrees with you” seems to be his guide.
Actually, this discussion is reminding me that UMaryland had a fairly comprehensive file of terrorist attacks, including a lot of information (like potentially religion). If I figure out where I put my copy, I’ll be sure to mention a summary to you all.
Straight Man wrote:
Why don’t you get off your lazy ass and go find out? It’s right there on the front page, you can’t miss it unless you’re too damned lazy to actually check the place out.
And the number is 16,809 now. Muslims are always busy doing what they do best…killing innocent people in the name of Islam. It’s been a few days, that number changes daily. Such is the nature of Islam.
Monty wrote:
Oh, just because YOU said so? CITE!
Maybe if you bothered to read the damned thing before dismissing it, you’d see where they get their info and why their numbers are accurate. I don’t see you getting off your lazy ass to refute them either.
El Kabong wrote:
The number is irrelevant and a mere diversionary tactic. Elucitard claimed that I quoted Newsbusters, and he outright LIED about that because I never did any such thing. THAT is the issue. Elucitard cannot even get the most basic of facts straight, even when I offer him money to do so.
Geez. Elucitard got real quiet when I handed him his ass for lying about my concerning his claim that I cited Newsbusters. See how liberals are? He was so eager to rip on me about something, he created an illusion in his mind and convinced himself of a falsehood. Typical. And when called out on it, he disappeared. Also typical. Liberals. Unreal. :rolleyes:
…and I found it almost as soon as I had posted. Anyway, it definitely doesn’t have direct info on religion, and the aggregation process would take too much of my time anyway, but a couple comments:
Some people don’t spend all their time trolling this website. You could stand to learn from their example.
Well, I’d like to suggest the Worldwide Incident Tracking System (WITS), a public database maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center:
https://wits.nctc.gov/FederalDiscoverWITS/index.do?N=0
One can run a number of different reports by date, based on criteria such as location, number of casualties, claimed perpetrators and so on. I’d be much more likely to trust figures from this database than the relatively unverified claims on the religionofpeace site.
Which reminds me: C-o-T has repeatedly claimed that muslims are responsible for 95% of all terrorist acts. I ran the data by claimed perpetrator for the period 2008-2010 (try it yourself) and while that ratio is roughly accurate when only considering acts of violence claimed to be of religous origin, it overlooks the fact that when compared to violent acts from all sources, muslim violence is more like 46%. Still a large number, and I assure everyone that I make no apologies for religious violence of any kind, but it certainly seems that C-o-T maybe though the number could be sexed up a bit and did so.
Straight Man wrote:
Oh sure, I’M the one who’s trolling, because I’m trying to debate issues with liberal idiots who have posted several hundred unrelated posts trying to insult or disparage me. Uh huh. Sure. Anything you say. You’re a moron.
Cool site, thanks for the link. It’s worth pointing out the same thing almost certainly applies to that database as the UMaryland one: counting depends on reporting. Muslim terrorism is most common in the Middle East/Maghreb and South Asia, which are, respectively, the world’s most over-reported region and a largely English-speaking region (with some decent press coverage, too). This means overcounting. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are attacks that just plain never get reported. Possibly a lot of attacks.
It’s also worth pointing out that, outside Sub-Saharan Africa, predominantly Christian nations tend to be better-developed, which is linked with greater internal peace and the government having a stricter monopoly on violence; hence, there’s less fighting overall, and governments (who definitionally cannot engage in terrorist attacks) are responsible for a greater proportion of the violence that actually does happen. It’s like the famous Arafat quote (which I’m paraphrasing): “Give me F-16’s like the Israelis have, and I wouldn’t use suicide bombers either.”
I don’t expect CoT to read, care about, or respond to this post, but if anyone else was curious, these things are worth thinking about.
By way of response, you complained about the other people in this thread insulting you (which doesn’t really relate to whether you’re trolling or not), then insulted me.
Your art is very impressive.
El Kabong wrote:
First, do you see where it says Group Type “Unknown”? Many of those are Islamic, but cannot be verified. Second, if you look at the numbers, there are 74,749 attacks listed, with 36,756 unknown. That leaves 37,992 accounted for, of which 19,879 are specifically Islamic, which is 52% of known terrorism, not 46%. Furthermore, many of the attacks listed as secular/political/anarchist seem to be Muslims doing it. God only knows how many of them are truly Islamic. I bet most of them.
And even if we go with “just” 52% of all known terrorism being committed by Muslims, we still have an issue of more than half of all terrorism being committed by ONE religion alone, and the other 48% being committed by the a combination of all other religions (all 4,200 or so of them) as well as all atheists, political and secular terrorists, etc. Basically, that means that a group of about 1 billion people (Muslims) commits far more acts of terror than the other 5 billion people who do not belong to that group.
The principle still stands…why are they so violent? And I say that the actual number is closer to 95% because most of the 36,756 unknown most likely involve Muslims, which means 75% of all terror is committed by Muslims. Based on their numbers.