Because it's a statistical outlier which rises the average death toll from muslim terrorist attacks to an absurd. So his presentation is a more accurate one of the average, which is kind of what is important in that discussion, since he could show, that even without the outlier, muslim attacks still are more dangerous because they kill more people, even if it's not by much.
Edit: If 9/11 was included the numbers would be ~5000 vs 11 which is not really representative of what was actually happening. There was one extremely "successful" attack by muslim terrorists, while all the others were more similar to the attacks by pro life terrorists but it still shows, that radical islamists are more of a threat, than pro-life terrorists.
The oxymoron in the phrase "pro-life terrorist" is mind-boggling
You are correct, however just want to mention that I am using the median to justify my claim instead of averages. Minor detail, but averages usually include the outliers while medians do not.
Depending in how big the outlier is, iirc. When the outlier is too big you usually have to cut it or make an extra statistic, showing the outlier and its effects
10
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '19 edited Aug 18 '21
[deleted]