Terrorism

Terrorism Today: Boko Haram Bigger Than ISIS; Most Western Deaths Have Nothing to Do With Islam; & More

The Global Terrorism Index charts 80 percent increase in terrorism deaths, with 33,000 killed in 2014.

|

The Global Terrorism Index for 2015, which has tracked the number and severity of terrorist attacks on the planet since 2000, has just been released. Among its findings:

  • The number of terror-related deaths rose by 80 percent from 2013 to 2014, with almost 33,000 deaths in the latter year.
  • Iraq remains the biggest scene of terrorism, with almost 10,000 deaths in 2014 from terrorism.
  • Nigeria's terrorism toll increased 300 percent in 2014, mostly due to the actions of Boko Haram.
  • The Islamic State (ISIS) and Boko Haram account for 51 percent of terrorism deaths, and Boko Haram is the deadlier of the two groups.

Read the full report here.

Between 2006 and 2014, the report notes that about 70 percent of deaths from terrorism in Europe and North America come not from religiously motivated actors who are connected to international groups but from politically motivated "lone wolf" types.

The majority of terrorist attacks in the West are not carried out by well-organised international groups. Instead, the terrorist threat in the West largely comes from lone wolf terrorism. Lone wolf terrorists are individuals or a small number of individuals who commit an attack in support of a group, movement, or ideology without material assistance or orders from such group. For example, the Boston bombings would be a lone wolf attack as the two brothers committed the attacks without any outside support. These types of attacks account for 70 per cent of all deaths in the West from 2006 to 2014.

By contrast, about 19 percent of deaths in Europe and North America came from terrorists motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.

The report, put together by the Institute for Economics and Peace, also estimates that Iraq's economy is only about two-thirds of what it would be absent all the terrorism that places it at the top of the index.

Vocativ

To put some of this in context, it's worth looking at the leading causes of death in Syria, the country whose civil war is not only a battlegroud between ISIS and various Western armies but the cause of millions of refugees in the Middle East and beyond. In the first seven months of this year, ISIS killed around 1,000 Syrians. That terrible number pales in comparison to the nearly 8,000 killed by the Syrian regime led by Bashar al Assad.

That disparity also makes helps explain why the situation in Syria is so complicated. While the United States is currently focused on ISIS in Syria and Iraq, our government has also called for regime change. Iran and Russia are simultaneously fighting ISIS and supporting Assad. French strikes in the area are focused on ISIS as well, which is also an enemy of various Sunni Gulf States (Saudi Arabia and the like) who are otherwise enemies of Iran and Syria. 

NEXT: Thoughts for liberals and conservatives about Syrian refugees

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Most Western Deaths Have Nothing to Do With Islam

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA – Nick.

    Now you’re just makin’ up shit. Come on, brah!

    1. #ChristianTerroristsLivesMatter

      1. He is correct, Obama said Isis isn’t made up of islamites…..probably baptist or something.

        1. Well, technically, they ARE bitter clingers.

  2. The majority of terrorist attacks in the West are not carried out by well-organised international groups. Instead, the terrorist threat in the West largely comes from lone wolf terrorism. Lone wolf terrorists are individuals or a small number of individuals who commit an attack in support of a group, movement, or ideology without material assistance or orders from such group. For example, the Boston bombings would be a lone wolf attack as the two brothers committed the attacks without any outside support. These types of attacks account for 70 per cent of all deaths in the West from 2006 to 2014.

    By contrast, about 19 percent of deaths in Europe and North America came from terrorists motivated by Islamic fundamentalism.

    WTF? So an attack is not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism if it is not funded by an outside group? The Tasmarev brothers were not motivated by Islam? That is going to come as one hell of a surprise to the surviving brother.

    How can Reason publish something this transparently stupid and dishonest?

    1. That was my take, as well, John.

      Once you throw away all the “lone wolf” attacks motivated by radical Islam, there aren’t that many lone wolf attacks motivated by radical Islam!

      By this test, many of the attacks by people shouting Allahu Akbar while they kill people have nothing to do with radical Islam. Absurd.

      1. According to these people the Fort Hood attack really was just workplace violence. I don’t see how lying about this stuff helps anything.

        1. And while we are on the discussion of definitions, here is the etymology of terrorist:

          late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

          Fascinating, the government were the original terrorists…did any libertarian ever doubt it?

          1. The Jacobins were not running the government when they did that. They were terrorists who later took over the government.

            1. You parse, I am proud. They did it AS the government. The term was used as a reference to those enforcing Robespierres Law of Prairial. Link

        2. To the contrary it hirts everything.

          It is important to identify the enemy before engaging in battle. The sounds simple and trite but the meaning goes to the core of ending the war.

          As long as Obama and other leftist believers keep trying to nuance their way around the fact that Islam is on the march after a century or three of licking it’s wounds anyone attempting to stop it without accepting it for what it is is flailing in the dark

      2. radical Islam is a diverse, ambiguous, and broad definition. There are many groups (some well-organized some not) within it that would much rather blow each other up than attack the west. So I would not class radical Islam as a well -organized international group. I would say you have standing to conclude radical islam is a key factor in many (most?) lone wolf attacks but other than that you need to get specific as to WHICH radical islamic sect/group/book club is doing the bad acting.

        Also, I would like to state for the record, in libertarian philosophy only individuals can have responsibility. Only individuals can legitimately be held to account for actions. Only individuals have rights. Anytime you start bringing in groups you are on the path to collectivism.

        1. They are not radical Islamists. They are the most devout Muslims living out their lives according to the tenents of their book.

          A radical Muslim would be one who calls for an enlightenment of Islam and the laying down of their expansion through violence beliefs.

          1. There are many sects of islam and many things in their sky person book, The Christian sky person book has some pretty bad shit too. They don’t usually act on that much anymore, a good thing, but they once did to a great extent. I see no difference between the old god calling for the genocide of the entire holy land and the Muslim god calling for the genocide of the entire holy land. Just separated by several thousand years and charismatic assholes.

            And here is what really gets me. In 1875 where were the papars decrying Islam. It was just as big then, they were still fighting then, people still died then. Why are the NOW such a big deal? What has changed?

            Did WWI-WWII and our actions since have no effect on that change? if they did then perhaps we should revert to the actions we were taking when Cleveland was president.

          2. Surah 2:256: “There shall be no compulsion in acceptance of the religion”

            Ayup. Them ISIS folks shur do follow their book and it’s tenants.

            1. Not intimately familiar with the Koran but earlier verses are abrogated by later verses when they clash. Not necessarily any conflict there.

            2. Methinks that Surah may be contradicted elsewhere in the true faith.

        2. “Only individuals can legitimately be held to account for actions”

          So why were we shooting at all those Germans and Japs again? They did not individually harm us until after each person started shooting.

          1. There were many conscientious objectors to WWII. Shooting at ambulances is a no no. Every soldier in a war made a choice. No, not every choice was awesome (enlist or die, enlist or go to prison). These I would argue were made under duress, true. BUT you can’t throw a Nazi ambulance driver in prison for war crimes. Nor can you shoot him just because he is German and on a battlefield. He MAY get shot, but that doesn’t make it right.

    2. nikki thinks it makes perfect sense

    3. The king of parsing doesn’t like parsing? WHAAAAATTTT?

      John, it gave its own definition right in the article. Say what you will about the parse but dishonest it isn’t. If the Boston boys were backed by a well-organized international group then perhaps they would have used ANPHO instead of a pressure cooker. Also, Aurora Theater shooting and Newtown massacre have been called terrorist attacks, not sure if those are included in these number or definitions, but they certainly qualify as lone wolf.

      1. ^and so does this guy

        1. The period has spoken…Nikki, is this yours? Cause I don’t want it.

          1. Looks more like a backtick ` than a period.

            1. sexist

      2. Saying that because the Boston Boys were not supported by some outside group means they were not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism is completely false and dishonest. Just because they put their dishonesty and absurd definition upfront doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

        1. I get your gist. I don’t get how you are holding Reason to task for parsing to such a degree when you perform the same rhetorical acts yourself. Is Nick’s definition dishonest? I don’t think it is as dishonest as it is not of much value to the discussion. However, the point that ISIS/Al Queda/Boko Haram/ Any other organization is NOT the major contributor to western terrorist deaths still stands. Radical islam is not an organizational definition any more than Christian is or American. Are there deaths from American assholes? Yes, does that mean American is responsible? No.

          These organizations house and support very bad people, yes. And they should be stopped. But the evidence suggests a bigger threat is from solo loonies with no real ties to those organizations.

          1. Wouldn’t this evidence just buttress the argument of those who don’t want to take in Middle Eastern refugees though?

            “Muslims don’t even have to be connected to a large outside network to still commit atrocities!”

            1. If one is obtuse about the position I suppose.
              Here, try this one on:
              “Americans don’t have to be connected to a large militia to go on a killing spree in a middle school.”

              1. All the more reason not to import them too.

              2. Americans are already here. We can’t deport the entire country. We can, however, keep people who are not here from coming in.

                And again, lying about this subject is not helpful. Militia members are not out shooting up schools and rock concerts. Muslims are. And given that it is impossible to tell which Muslims are going to do that and which won’t, maybe letting large numbers of Muslims into the country is not such a good idea?

              3. How is that analogy meaningful?

                1. regardless of to whom you made this comment it is accurate.

          2. Yes, radical Islam is very much a standard that anyone can pick up and fight for. There is no one big organization. I don’t think that fact means what Nick thinks it does, however. That fact raises the very uncomfortable fact that it is possible for any Muslim to one day decide to pick up the standard and become a terrorist. That means checking for possible links to terrorist groups isn’t a particularly effective way to keep terrorists out of the country.

            I will leave the implications for the question of allowing Muslim refugees into the country for you to ponder.

            And I still don’t see how Nick’s definition is anything but dishonest.

            1. As i replied to Tak above, painting with such a broad brush is not only Non-libertarian/freedom oriented but also extremely dangerous. Governments throughout history have made plenty of hay collectivizing in such a manner. Should people from the middle east who come here be scrutinized? Yes, there is ample evidence to support concern. However, I am 55 times more likely to be shot by a US cop than die in a terror attack…ponder THAT shit.

              1. The fact that 99% of Muslims are not terrorists is meaningless if you can’t identify who among them is the 1% who are, especially in the context of immigration.

                The issue is not what percentage of Muslims are terrorists. The issue is what percentage of terrorists are Muslims. And that is most certainly a lot higher than 1%.

                1. I will agree with your last observation but that is truly a meaningless statistic. Unless you are a Nazi and want to kill all Jews because you have credible evidence that 1 of them is in charge of a banking cabal. It is collectivist either way. I can debate the merits of collectivism, but lets admit that this is what we are debating.

                  As with the death penalty, it isn’t justice it is revenge. if you want to debate the merits of revenge then fine but lets be honest about it and not call it justice.

                  1. Bandit,

                    It is not revenge to refuse to let people into the country. We don’t owe anyone entry here. I am not talking about shooting every Muslim, just not letting more into the country until this insanity passes.

                    1. I was using that as a device to make sure we are talking about the right definition. you are talking about collectivism. you are not using that word and you should be. In DP threads we are talking about revenge not justice. Same distinction. You are presenting an argument for a collectivist approach to a problem. I get it. We have seen it hundreds of times throughout history. The Irish, the Catholic, the Italians, the Jews, the Christians, etc. Yes, many Muslims become psychopathic killers, yes it is possible (though I have seen no data to support this) that Muslims are statistically more prone to such things. None of this changes the fact that branding an entire group due to the actions of a microscopic number of perpetrators is not a logically consistent nor moral course. It IS a course taken many times, by many governments and populations. It is not new. And you will not hear me say it isn’t effective. Because it is. But it is still wrong.

              2. “Should people from the middle east who come here be scrutinized? Yes, there is ample evidence to support concern.”

                So don’t paint with a broad brush, but… seriously, paint with a broad brush there’s ample evidence?

                “However, I am 55 times more likely to be shot by a US cop than die in a terror attack…ponder THAT shit.”

                So no refugees and no cops. Sounds good.

                1. There is ample evidence that men commit more crimes than women. We do scrutinize men more due to many factors. It does not mean men get fewer rights to due process.

                  I am cool with no cops and not paying for any refugee/immigrant.

                  1. “There is ample evidence that men commit more crimes than women. We do scrutinize men more due to many factors. It does not mean men get fewer rights to due process.”

                    So, in other words, you’re painting with a broad brush. Good (or at least, cost-effective).

                    Do having the same rights to due process equate with the libertarian notion of freedom at all? I’d say no, not really.

                    1. Do having the same rights to due process equate with the libertarian notion of freedom at all? I’d say no, not really.

                      This doesn’t make sense to me. Can you elaborate?

                      And, unfortunately, broad brushes are a fact of life in many instances, and steps should be made to avoid them…you have yet to refute that they are collectivist and lead to governments murdering hundreds of millions of people.

                    2. “This doesn’t make sense to me. Can you elaborate?”

                      Due process, simply put, means the the state must respect one’s legal rights. If the state doesn’t believe one has the legal right to travel then that’s that. Your rights have been respected yet you still can’t enter. In contrast, the libertarian notion that you have a right to travel would supersede any and all government restrictions.

                      “And, unfortunately, broad brushes are a fact of life in many instances, and steps should be made to avoid them…”

                      You seem to be both of two minds on this. Previously, you spoke positively of Middle Easterners being more harshly scrutinized. Now it should be eliminated. Maybe you can clarify your position. Perhaps you are with me that broad brushes are an effective and useful tool but must be used carefully and re-evaluated frequently?

                      “you have yet to refute that they are collectivist and lead to governments murdering hundreds of millions of people.”

                      I never intended to. “Middle Easterners” and “Men” are both collectivist checks on a box. Not granting them Refugee status, of course, isn’t in any way murder. Not even government murder.

                    3. In contrast, the libertarian notion that you have a right to travel would supersede any and all government restrictions.

                      This is more AnCap than libertarian.

                      Perhaps you are with me that broad brushes are an effective and useful tool but must be used carefully and re-evaluated frequently?

                      Without many scotches and a few Padron 4000s this is as close as you and I will come. I will only add that it is still morally wrong. Regardless of effectiveness.

                      Not granting them Refugee status, of course, isn’t in any way murder.

                      Ohh I agree it isnt murder, but the reasoning is on the course to it. The border nuts want a fence, it wont stop illegals. The “effective” fence is the one where all who approach are summarily executed. Not an immigration policy I endorse. But one born out of collectivist thought.

                    4. “This is more AnCap than libertarian.”

                      Okay, fair enough. I’d say An-Caps are the most libertarian, libertarians there are. But many fine people disagree.

                      “Without many scotches and a few Padron 4000s this is as close as you and I will come. I will only add that it is still morally wrong. Regardless of effectiveness.”

                      Won’t argue about morality. If you think it’s wrong then it is.

                      “Ohh I agree it isnt murder, but the reasoning is on the course to it. The border nuts want a fence, it wont stop illegals. The “effective” fence is the one where all who approach are summarily executed. Not an immigration policy I endorse. But one born out of collectivist thought.”

                      But is it cost effective?!

          3. It’s also a useful distinction to make in refutation of claims, largely by conservatives but also by Obama, Clapper et al., that bulk collection practices will help foil conspirators. If such attacks are by and large the domain of small-time operators and not an international effort, there’s little that intelligence agencies can do.

            1. Yes. That is true. But I don’t think that is the point Nick is making.

          4. Let’s say I don’t disagree with any of your facts, this still leaves me with a big “so what?” with regards ot the following

            “However, the point that ISIS/Al Queda/Boko Haram/ Any other organization is NOT the major contributor to western terrorist deaths still stands.”

            Maybe that’s true, but so what? The discussion really doesn’t hinge on the raw numbers, and never will. It’s a useless metric IMO.

            “And they should be stopped. But the evidence suggests a bigger threat is from solo loonies with no real ties to those organizations.”

            Again, so what? So individuals are a larger threat? That means what in response to considering other threats? It seems the implication is that by not being the most numerous, other threats can be disregarded.

            1. A fallacious interpretation to be sure. It means if you have limited resources go for the bang for the buck if possible.

              I think Nick’s article is really just pointing out that we spend a shitload on something that isn’t going to have a measurable difference. I also do not support any proposals to track down lone loonies either. They wont and cant be effective. Some things in life must be endured. Crazy mofos with explody stuff is unfortunately one of them.

              Simple things like being armed, staying somewhat alert, not invading other countries unless they invade you, can go a long way to mitigating some of the risk.

              1. It means if you have limited resources go for the bang for the buck if possible.

                Ok, but the governing wisdom there seems to be that lone wolf attacks can’t be prevented, especially by an apparatus as slow and lumbering as our government.

                If that’s true, then the “biggest bang for your buck” would be the largest, most easily identified group first, then to the next, and so on. No?

                1. re-read my second paragraph.

                  1. It doesn’t address my question.

                    “If that’s true, then the “biggest bang for your buck” would be the largest, most easily identified group first, then to the next, and so on. No?”

                    1. Or rather, if it does, I can’t make sense of it. Maybe that’s on me.

                    2. My point is no threats are to be disregarded but all action must be viewed though the lens of effectiveness and morality. It is immoral in my opinion to punish a group of people rather than individuals. It does happen sometimes, there are civilian casualties in war etc. But that doesn’t change the point. And sometimes you punish an entire group AND are still ineffective. That is double plus ungood.

            2. “However, the point that ISIS/Al Queda/Boko Haram/ Any other organization is NOT the major contributor to western terrorist deaths still stands.”

              This invites the conclusion that we shouldn’t be focussing on affiliation with these groups, but rather looking for some other common denominators or flags.

              And, gee, I wonder what those might be?

              1. You may certainly infer that. I am not sure that was Nick’s point. And I will point out the it is immoral from the standpoint of be collectivist. I try very hard not to support collectivism. And remember 55 times more likely to be shot and killed by a cop than a terrorist.

    4. Why is Reason so emotionally invested in this issue? Particularly since its application to the United States is largely about the question of whether the U.S. taxpayer should spend 65 thousand bucks a refugee to fly them over here and put them up for at least six months?

      It just seems weird to see the editorial board coming out with 6-8 different articles today about how This Is Really Nothing To Worry About.

      1. Good question. The tax payer involvement gives Reason a perfect out to avoid this subject while not violating their open borders commitment. Instead they are going full retard on the issue. And people say I am wrong when I accuse them of social signaling. You tell me how else you explain this.

        1. I of course do not support ANY taxpayer funded refugee movement, support, etc. I don’t support any taxpayer welfare, for anyone. If however I have a US passport and a foreign government snatches me up in violation of a treaty with the US the I expect every one of you lazy bastards to pony up to get my ass back.

          1. As we should. Lets not forget that not only is reason all for spending money to import people here, they from what I can see don’t give a flying fuck about the Americans who have been kidnapped by Iran and were completely unbothered by Obama not demanding their release as a condition of the nuclear deal reason loves so much.

          2. I might throw a few bucks into a fund.

            1. I would drink your beer first once returned, well, after I visit Epis mom.

      2. There are cocktail parties to attend and late-night interviews to give. You don’t get invited to these things by agreeing with those awful Republicans.

      3. Because they believe to their core that open borders are a panacea.

        1. Apply the same policy as cuba. If you can get here, you can stay here, unless Janet Reno wants to send you back.

      4. Why is Reason so emotionally invested in this issue?

        Because Trump’s poll numbers are falling?

      5. they’re pant shitting over the yokels

        1. Actually, I think they are pants-shitting over the pants-shitters, are they not?

          Its dirty Depends all the way down.

      6. They’re shitting their pants over the RACISM!!! charge. Same reason why so many of them are squishes on the Civil Rights Act.

    5. How can Reason publish something this transparently stupid and dishonest?

      Practice makes perfect.

  3. For example, the Boston bombings would be a lone wolf attack as the two brothers committed the attacks without any outside support.

    So the index is worthless. Good to know.

  4. The Tsarnaev’s weren’t quite obviously religiously motivated?

    1. Did we ever actually find out what their motivation was?

      1. “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims.”

      2. Perhaps, like Nidal Hassan, he had a toothache!

        1. *they had toothaches!

    2. Islam is a political and legal ideology as well as religious.

      Simply because they weren’t driven by the religious aspect of Islam but perhaps the political one doen’t mean that Islam is not what inspired their actions.

  5. To put some of this in context, it’s worth looking at the leading causes of death in Syria, the country whose civil war is not only a battlegroud between ISIS and various Western armies but the cause of millions of refugees in the Middle East and beyond. In the first seven months of this year, ISIS killed around 1,000 Syrians. That terrible number pales in comparison to the nearly 8,000 killed by the Syrian regime led by Bashar al Assad.

    So ISIS really isn’t that bad? Who the fuck cares Nick. And since when is the number of deaths the only thing that matters. What is Assaad killed mostly fighters in combat and 900 of ISIS’ 1000 were crucifying people for being the wrong religion? I am pretty sure ISIS would be the worst in that case.

    Moreover, where do those numbers even come from? How reliable is that 1000 number anyway?

  6. You know, I wonder what the folks at reason think about terrorism and what happened in Paris.

  7. “These reports about people being sent to the Gulag are patently untrue.”

  8. “We are The Lone Rangers!!!!… I mean WOLVES!!!!

  9. I agree – Islam itself, not the various terrorist groups, is the root cause.

    When Fran?ois Hollande says we are not at war with Islam, he’s repeating a nice pleasant lie.

    1. Like Obama he may not be at war with Islam but like Obama Islam is at war with him.

      Chamberlin would be so proud.

    2. Oh puh-leaze. There are a billion Muslims. If we were at war with all of them we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Cripes you people love your clash fantasies.

      1. Rock the Casbah, rock the Casbah.

      2. Just because Stalin sends people to the Gulag doesn’t mean all communists are bad.

      3. He said “Islam”, not “Muslims”.

        I know a shit ton of Muslims who do not follow the tenants of Islam in their daily lives. These are what’s known as moderate Muslims, I guess.

        However, Islam is still sitting there, just as fucked up as ever.

  10. I am confused: lone wolf = not Islam-motivated? Why? Am I misreading the article?

    1. No. The article is that stupid.

    2. It’s like a rough draft sent around for comments without a thesis statement or conclusion.

  11. I love how this topic just brings out the retard everywhere.

    *notes “immigration” must be added to “ass secks, Messicans and pot” from now on*

    1. I thought it was covered under Messicans.

      1. Ass-fucking Mexican hotties after smoking some Pineapple Kush? Where is the sign up sheet?

        1. Who said it was you that was going to be smoking the pot and pitching to the Messicans, anyway?

      2. Yes, Messicans is the code word for “immigration”, but we should really replace all with “refugees” to keep the menu clean.

  12. By far most western deaths are related to old age. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue.

    All of these bullshit arguments and appeals to emotion are a clear sign that they are just dead fucking wrong.

  13. Nothing to do with Terrorism.

    WTF? Look Nick. I get it. There are about 1,500 million Muslims in the world: give or take 6. And that they do not represent a monolithic philosophy. I can’t imagine getting freaked out if Mohammed Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabar showed up at dinner. But it seems obvious to me that the world has an Islam problem. Further, it is obvious that a substantial portion of that which could be called Islam is in a war with the West, whether the West wants to acknowledge it or not.

    I recognize that I am not smart or know enough to understand how the Sunni/Shia schism plays in all that. Whether the invasion of Europe is an aggregation of decisions made by individuals? Whether there is a party/nation/groups of muslims with motivations that are exercising some kind of collective will? Whether it is a mix. All I see is the conduct carried out by individual Muslim. I don’t know how many Muslims are willing to live in relatively free society.

    Many, but not all, Muslims seem to like to kill, rape, rob, (See:Sweden and Norway) and do other shit that doesn’t exactly comport with my American values (i.e. the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious freedom). I am an open borders guy. However, IMHO, my open borders philosophy is premised with the understanding that anyone coming here is also going to exercise NAP. And if not, I don’t feel any moral or philosophical guilt keeping them the fuck out.

    1. Given the evidence, if I am approached by a Muslim, I am starting with the rebuttable presumption that his person is going to do me and my family harm. I will watch for evidence of assimiliation. I will watch for evidence of peacefulness. If they wear a Santa hat during christmas, ask me to go out for a beer and a bacon double cheezeburger, then I might entertain that the presumption is rebutted. So I think is completely rational and in accordance with libertarianism to be skeptical and have as a starting point to keep as many of them the fuck out until they prove to me that they are not a threat.

      1. I tend to agree. Ideas, philosophies, religions or ideologies, in whichever context you want to describe Islam, are not created equal. These abstract concepts describe programming with which a person understands and interacts with the outside world. Discriminating against those with singularly awful programming doesn’t seem to be a violation of any moral principles that I’m aware of. But preventing someone from discriminating access to their persons or property on those grounds is most certainly a violation of moral principle.

        And regardless, I find it sad that a place would be transformed from distinctly ‘western’ to distinctly ‘Islamic’. Just like it woudn’t think it for the better if Germany was taken over by communists or nazis or [insert vile ideology here].

  14. So – when is Reason’s merger with The Onion due to be completed?

  15. The ‘lone wolves’ aren’t ‘lone’ they’re all connected to a massive group that adheres to a violent ideology.

    It’s called ‘Islam’.

  16. I could never get an internship with Reason because I don’t have the right pedigree, never been published, and am not ideologically pure, but fuck, I can’t imagine writing some of the weapons grade stupid that Reason has posted today.

    1. If you were illiterate and incapable of writing your output would be a vast improvement over this dreck. Go ahead and apply.

  17. In the first seven months of this year, ISIS killed around 1,000 Syrians. That terrible number pales in comparison to the nearly 8,000 killed by the Syrian regime led by Bashar al Assad.

    To me, this means that people who are actually fleeing Syria are more likely to be fleeing Assad, not ISIS.

    Which means that they are more likely to be Assad’s enemies, rather than ISIS’s enemies.

    And, for that reason, more likely to be ISIS sympathizers.

    1. Isn’t it possible, just possible, that a decent chunk of those 8,000 were in fact ISIS?

  18. I would say that Reason has jumped the shark, but it’s more like a shark jumping circus here lately.

    I could say why are you all upset about cops killing citizens, since criminals kill many more. Does that argument ease your concern about out of control cops?

    1. I could say why are you all upset about cops killing citizens, since criminals kill many more.

      Excellent analogy

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.