It's more like LOL men between 15-35 or whatever who will do incredibly stupid **** in the name of whatever BS ideology.

No matter what the answer to the first part of your question is, the second part is right regardless. Im pretty sure there has been one fwiw, couldn't imagine there NOT being at least one tbh.

@FC
That's not even completely correct. These young men didn't come up with this **** by their selves.

I never said they came up with it themselves. They're just the ones who are willing to go all the way to prove whatever it is they feel they need to prove.

It was just the age part I didn't agree with. Anyone convincing someone to do this has to fall in the lol human category imo.

I'll take oppressive communist regimes for 1000, Alex

of the 137 deadly terrorist incidents in the world in 2015, 130 have been undertaken by Islamic extremists

There have been attacks by Islamic extremists in 25 countries this year: US, Israel, France, Denmark, Bosnia, Philippines, Nigeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Chad, Kenya, Libya, Yemen, Mali, Somalia, Tunisia, Kuwait, Syria, Niger, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Turkey

of the 7 incidents that were not Islamic extremism, 3 were in the Ukraine conflict, 3 were Communist revolutionaries, and 1 was an American white supremacist

Crusadader, though. I think their religion is just the door-opener for some seriously dangerous **** they already had in their heads without Allah, Moohamed etc. If I'd kill a bunch of people, I'd at least have the balls to leave a letter saying that I was mad as hell, not going to take it anymore, or whatever else deluded BS, but definitely point out that I am not religious. Some would call me a role-model, I think.

Incorrect, lose 1000.

Until they die. Then they burn in hell for eternity.

If you're talking about Stalin, it's somewhat debatable whether he was actually atheist himself or not. He just demanded that everyone else be atheist.

Not sure what religion is cool with that.

Was he waving a Confederate Flag when he shot those Marines?

Really sad this isn't getting more attention nationwide.

Sad but not exactly surprising. Our national media is so biased and corrupt it may be beyond repair. Heard today someone wounded during the attack died today, thoughts & prayers to all them and their loved ones. These sort of things should not be happening.

Why should this be getting more attention?

It's a ****ing top story everywhere, how much attention should it get?

I'm pretty sure TooRareToDie is planning to commit a mass murder if anyone needed that pointed out to them.

Well everyone deep down wants to do a mass murder, but all dat planning doe.

I wonder what definition of terrorism they were using. If they're using the "non-state actor" one it becomes basically meaningless. States love it though, because it means they can never commit terrorism.

i agree to some extent

but i was rebutting or pre-rebutting the constant religious equivalence as if it is faith in general that is a problem. nope, just the violent cult of Islam.

First your numbers are spectacularly wrong. You are likely off by at least two orders of magnitude. The morning you made this post 115 people died in a single attack in Baghdad. The death toll stands at ~130 as of today. But no whites killed so not really terrorism.

Hell Nigeria alone has likely had at least an order of magnitude more deaths than you stated...from one single incident. Again, only poors killed so no big deal. Which reminds me I need to see how Chloe is handing this whole Caitlyn Jenner thing.

To put it in perspective the US State Dept., who under-reports deaths caused by terrorism b/c it fails to record, you know, when we kill them, puts the death toll at ~33000 in 2014.

Which brings me to my point. The word terrorism, as it is used today, should be stricken from language as it has been abused to the point of absurdity.

I said incidents not deaths...deaths obv in the thousands.

There were 13463 terrorist attacks last year, so it doesn't really change much of what I said. But yes I obv misread that.

I feel like it's a bit of a no true scotsman fallacy when people say things like that.

'Terrorism' is the way that crazy muslims kill people.

'Liberation' is the way that crazy christians kill people.

'Smugness overload' is the way crazy atheists kill people.

You basically define an action specifically to the range of violent actions that group has available to them, then vilify that action and effectively excuse the violent actions of other people who had options outside that range.


It would be like if say you gave sticks to all blonde people, and gave rocks to all brunettes, let them fight, then constantly talked about the horrible stick attacks that the blonde extremists were committing. Meanwhile the rocks were precision strikes that were designed to protect our freedom. Don't want to politard and agree that extremism is a serious problem, just wanted to point out what I feel is a fallacy.

So Breivik was just really smug ?

I think terrorism is reasonably well described by the definition from (for example) wikipedia;
Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic, religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).

Terrorism could also be defined by intention but its not something we regularly do because its hard/impossible to find this out. Maybe the 9/11 bombings were not even intended to put fear into people but rather just to blow **** up which would make it a regular attack on the USA instead of terrorism.

Equating modern Islam and Christianity in this context is laughable but I guess people see what they want to see. Its especially sickening when you see the hypocrisy like selectively banning the confederate flag because of the most recent incident.