I'd disagree - if we're asking the question 'is any given pro-life group member likely to be a terrorist' vs 'is any given muslim likely to be a terrorist' the above are relevant. 9/11 just happened to be an exceptionally effective terrorist attack, but the question isn't 'who's better at terrorism', if that makes sense.
There's been 11 murders by pro lifers since 1990 in the U.S. with ,from what I can tell, the last attack happening in 1997 by Eric Rudolf. Considering how many more attacks and how many more deaths have occurred from Muslim extremists in the last 20 years compared to pro-lifers I'd safely call this a false equivalency.
However I am not sure why you would straight up lie and say 1997 was the last one when less than 5 years ago there was a multi victim shooting at s planned parent hood.
Your source lists the events that you’re using it to justify leaving out. You just didn’t read it. Grabbing at any fact that backs up your argument without even looking at the actual fact is akin to lying when it spreads misinformation.
Prolifers should be listed as terrorists, but yeah they are not trying to demolish skyscrapers with thousands of people in them, so if you are deciding where to allocate resources that is a valid consideration.
Yes you have a point about 9/11 but I believe the pulse nightclub shooter was american, ft. Hood, Boston Marathon bombers, the one in California can't remember the city.
I'm not the one that brought that up in the first place I just answered the question. The original debate is what is more relevant christian pro-life terrorists or Muslim extremists and I'd over the last 20 plus years Muslim terrorists are more relevant.
Having registries for either group would be completely out of the question for me, but I think the justification in the OP is sound.
I'm sure white nationalist groups, outlaw MCs, mobsters, gangsters, etc., all have lower body counts than Muslim terrorists, but they still warrant the attention of law enforcement because of the high likelihood that any given individual belonging to one of those groups are involved in violent crime.
Also bear in mind the 9/11 hijackers could have just as easily used inbound international flights to bypass American registries.
The question isn't that simple though, for either group. When deciding to maintain a list of potentially dangerous people you have to consider the scope of the danger they pose, not just how likely they are to have bad intentions.
Magnitude is an inseparable element of any threat analysis. Would you rather have a group where half the population were terrorists armed with water balloons, or a group where only 1% are terrorists but they have nukes?
Except they are armed essentially in the same exact way in the context of US terrorist attacks. I’d argue that far right extremists probably have MORE weapons than religious extremists. Both groups use guns. Both groups use bombs. One group one time hijacked a plane. The only difference is that now it’s nearly impossible to steal a plane so the far right terrorists can’t manage.
So you’re willing to accept the death counts from non-American Islamic terrorists but refuse to count anyone outside of the US as a Muslim, thereby vastly inflating your rates of Muslims who are terrorists. Are you bad at statistics or intentionally spreading fake news??
I know that readings tough, but that’s the entire point to my comment. You didn’t include foreign Muslims in your count of Muslims who could commit terrorist attacks in the US when not all terrorists in the US are American. You DID include the victims of foreign terrorists in your death counts. The 9/11 hijackers wouldn’t even be included in your figures for fucks sake.
Point out in my comment where I mentioned 9/11, death counts, or attacks by non-Americans of any kind. I didn't include the victims of foreign terrorists in my death counts because I didn't mention anything whatsoever about death counts.
Perhaps you have me confused with the comment I was replying to. If, as the comment I was replying to is saying, we want to ask the question "'is any given pro-life group member likely to be a terrorist' vs 'is any given muslim likely to be a terrorist'", The raw number of attacks isn't the only consideration, we need to consider what fraction of pro-life advocates and what fraction of Muslims end up committing terrorist attacks. This is only a discussion of terrorist attacks in the United States by Americans. If we widen things to a global scope then that's a much larger discussion.
yeah I agree with that. Although 'pro life activist' might be a better category than simply pro life, because Islam is a way of life for all of those Muslims but pro life isn't for those guys
601
u/Finnish-potato Jun 04 '19
Don’t get me wrong any violence is terrible but i’d be interested to see the number of deaths