Or from the fallout of it
>62 people in U.S. killed by Islamic terrorists for every one killed by right-wing extremists
i think i'd rather crucify myself than read a college fix article about a professor with debunk written in all caps
however i did anyway....
>Is this one of those graphs that conveniently starts after 9/11?
yes, it says so explicitly at the top
Until the Orlando nightclub shooting, "the number of deaths caused by far-right-wing attacks outnumbered those caused by jihadism-related attacks," Ford said.
@DanielKO They've also included some oddball incidents as "far-right"
>“Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.'”
The "2003 Salinas, Calif. Abudction, Torture, and Murder" was two hispanics killing a bisexual
also >implying radial islam isn't "far-right"
Dunno how that's similar to the actual skinheads they've cited selewhere
"The terrorist threat in the United States is almost entirely homegrown, as no foreign terrorist organization has successfully directed and orchestrated an attack in the United States since 9/11,"
Yeah, it only took ONE incident to change that balance
per capita islamic terrorism is probably worse
```“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.```
```Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the Holtcreation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.```
i'm not sure if the best point he could've made here is imply that homeland security is completely incompetent at stopping right-wing terrorism
They have the same goals as white nationalists
ONE islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a single incident, but it took 14 years for "far right" "terrorism" to approach the same figure
And I'm supposed to consider Islamic terrorism LESS of a threat?
What a surprise, after a massive Islamic terrorism attack, strict defense policies are put into place to try to stop more Islamic terrorism attacks. This retard thinks that, since fewer attacks happened after that, it means that Islamic terrorists aren't a threat.
They've killed more people in less incidents
Dude, it's exactly the opposite.
Except the TSA has never prevented anything
Not one to defend TSA, but still.
Gotta give it to em you do something you do it right
Their value is also mostly deterrence, rather than active prevention
The TSA will always end up killing more people than it will ever save
@Edgy_Username Exactly, am I supposed to consider a bunch on unrelated skinheads committing armed robbery a serious national threat?
the entire point is that you wouldn't find out if they did prevent something from happening
```ONE islamic terrorist killed 49 people in a single incident, but it took 14 years for "far right" "terrorism" to approach the same figure
And I'm supposed to consider Islamic terrorism LESS of a threat?```
9/11 is obviously a massive outlier
Because people are more likely to drive rather than fly now which is statistically much more dangerous.
when am I gonna see white nationalists flying crop dusters into corn silos???
holy shit, @Deleted User , do you have any idea of the implications of having that loose of a standard for responsibility
@Sue✨ Yeah, it's such an outlier we fought a bunch of stupid wars over it, it was a pretty big deal. Over a thousand people died because we upset some rich saudi cunt with religious pull
They are not worth the $7 billion