Terrorism

Do Muslims Commit Most U.S. Terrorist Attacks?

Nope. Not even close.

|

TerrorismDynamiteNomadsoul
Nomadsoul/Dreamtime

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it," asserted President Donald Trump a month ago. He was referring to a purported media reticence to report on terror attacks in Europe. "They have their reasons, and you understand that," he added. The implication, I think, is that the politically correct press is concealing terrorists' backgrounds.

To bolster the president's claims, the White House then released a list of 78 terror attacks from around the globe that Trump's minions think were underreported. All of the attackers on the list were Muslim—and all of the attacks had been reported by multiple news outlets.

Some researchers at Georgia State University have an alternate idea: Perhaps the media are overreporting some of the attacks. Political scientist Erin Kearns and her colleagues raise that possibility in a preliminary working paper called "Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others?"

First they ask how many terror attacks have taken place between 2011 and 2015. (The 2016 data will become available later this summer.) The Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland, which catalogs information on over 150,000 incidents since 1970, defines terrorism as an "intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor" that meets at least two of three criteria. First, that it be "aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal." Second, that there is "evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims." And finally, that it be "outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law."

The Georgia State researchers report that the database catalogs 110 terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the most recent five-year span period in the database. (Globally, there were more than 57,000 terrorist attacks during that period.) In some cases, the media tended to report several attacks perpetrated by the same people as a single combined story; following their lead, the researchers reduce the number to 89 attacks.

They then set out to answer four different questions: Would an attack receive more coverage if the perpetrators were Muslim, if they were arrested, if they aimed at government employees or facilities, or if it resulted in a high number of deaths?

From a series of searches at LexisNexis and CNN.com, Kearns and her colleagues gathered a dataset of 2,413 relevant news articles. If each attack had received equal media attention, they would have garnered an average of 27 news articles apiece. Interestingly, 24 of the attacks listed in the GTD did not receive any reports in the news sources they probed. For example, a cursory Nexis search failed to turn up any news stories about a 2011 arson attack on townhouses under construction in Grand Rapids, Michigan. An internet search by me did find several local news reports that cited a threatening letter warning residents to leave the neighborhood: "This attack was not isolated, nor will it be the last. We are not peaceful. We are not willing to negotiate." The GTD reports so far that no one has been apprehended for the attack.

For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

Some non-Muslims did get intense coverage. Wade Michael Page, who killed six people in an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, generated 92 articles, or 3.8 percent of the dataset. Dylann Roof's murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, inspired 179 articles, or 7.4 percent. Robert Dear's slaying of three people at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs led to 204 articles, or 8.5 percent. Still, "Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks."

No doubt this greater media focus on Muslim perpetrators has badly skewed the public's—and Trump's—impressions about the sources of terrorist attacks in the U.S. On the other hand, the Georgia State researchers do not acknowledge an important difference between the purveyors of jihadist ideology and domestic racists like Page and Roof. ISIS and Al Qaeda are adroit publicists who have leveraged their relatively few attacks into successfully instilling a sense of terror into many Americans.

The Georgia State researchers conclude: "By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent. Based on these findings, it is no wonder that Americans are so fearful of radical Islamic terrorism. Reality shows, however, that these fears are misplaced."

Such fears are indeed misplaced. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114. Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. This new study is one small step in that direction.

Advertisement

NEXT: Employee Who Leaked NYPD Killer Cop's Disciplinary Record Already Out of a Job

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. What’s with all the Islamonaziphilia around here lately? Did Prince Alaweed or whatever the fuck his name is just give the brothers a billion dollar donation or something?

    1. What are you talking about now, Simple Mikey?

    2. You got kicked out again, didn’t you?

      1. I’ve been spending a lot more time lately over at glibertarians.com, where folks are way more interesting and intelligent than you are, and where as an added special bonus the fucking software actually works.

        1. That’s so cute.

        2. Well, if you are praising the place, Mikey, I gotta say I am intrigued.

        3. Glibertarains.com: A Cuckaschmuck Gay Boy free zone.

        4. Well, i hope the glibertarians give you all the respect you are due, like we do over here.

          1. “…but DD apparently didn’t read it.”

            I’m sure someone was surprised.

  2. i imagine the concentrated interest in Islamic terrorism is that those acts seem to have a common root that people can easily identify.

    1. Yes. Like ALL uses of the word ‘terrorist’ by the powers-that-be, it’s easier to chest-thump and fear-monger the sheep when you can blame the other. And the folks that use that word don’t seem to care in the slightest that calling terrorists terrorists gives them what they usually want (ie ain’t I a badass attention)

  3. I’m sorry Ron, but it-never-happened-before-isms make for stupid arguments in my opinion.

    1. Will you be attaining literacy soon?

  4. RE: Do Muslims Commit Most U.S. Terrorist Attacks?
    Nope. Not even close.

    The Muslim scare is the new Red Scare.

    1. No shit. Collectivism is based on fear, and each group needs a boogeyman to herd the sheeple. For conservatives, it’s the crescent moon.

    2. Nope. Not even close.

      Ok. who commits most US Terror attacks then?

      and please cite your sources.

      (*warning – i’ve read ari prelenger’s thing already.)

      1. I don’t know about US, but in Europe, most are committed by separatist groups .

        1. I don’t know about US

          Just above you said, “No shit” when he claimed something about the US. So you had no idea then either?

          We aren’t talking about Europe.

          (If we were, i’d point out how that claim is bullshit as well, by using a handful of small, long-term regional conflicts (like ETA) to dilute the data and pretend that Muslims aren’t actually as sigificant as they are. Simply take UK, France, Germany, and tell me who committs the most terror. If you can’t answer that question, its because no one wants you to.)

          1. Why should I bother if you are just going to goal shift to get the data that will validate your beliefs? The burden is on the accusers, which are the islamophobes in this case. When data is presented to challenge their claims, they redefine their claim.

            1. You said you know, then you said you don’t know.

              Which is it?

              1. What is your question exactly? Is it about the US? You yourself posted a link up above that had a chart that showed that the number of non-muslim extremist attacks was higher than muslim ones.

                1. You yourself posted a link up above that had a chart that showed that the number of non-muslim extremist attacks was higher than muslim ones.

                  That’s not what the chart said, and what the chart said doesn’t support the claim Uncle Jay above answered, which you agreed with, and now admit you know nothing about.

                  1. additionally =

                    if it DID show that “”the number of non-muslim extremist attacks was higher than muslim ones.“” (it doesn’t) it would still be showing that Islamic extremists were almost half of the total.

                    Given that “non-islamic extremists” is just a miscellaneous category of “all others”…
                    (which include everything from left wing ELF attacks to Sovereign Citizens to Puerto Rican separatists)
                    ….

                    that chart therefore shows that Yes, Muslims commit the largest share of terror in the US out of any single group.

                    Even more so – it would reveal that despite being only 1% of the population, they manage to commit 40%+ of all terror.

                    Not exactly evidence to support Uncle Jay (and your) stupid fucking claim, is it?

                    that said – the chart is completely meaningless because its just a measure of ‘fatalities’, and the deaths in the ‘non-islamic-extremists’ side include every single fatal hate-crime (e.g. lone, unaffiliated criminals) committed during the period.

                    iow, it conflates ‘hate crimes’ committed by solo individuals w/ terror acts committed by ideological political movements.

                    1. Even after all your special pleading, you arrived at 40%. 40% is not a majority.

                    2. Extending your logic the only thing that matters then is an absolute majority and not a significant disproprotionality. So we can then stop talking about racist cops and drug laws simply because a majority of thise arrested are white.

                    3. “Muslim-extremists commit more violent terror acts than any other group in the US”

                      True or false?

                      Further = they almost exclusively commit violent terror acts that target large groups of people – as opposed to individual – the main kind that should concern the public.

                      True or false?

                      You seem to have overlooked the point that i already pointed out that the data in the chart presented above was stupid and meaningless, continuing to demonstrate reading-comprehension.

                      I was asking you to substantiate *your* claim. You haven’t even tried, because you’re stupid (demonstrated) and intellectually dishonest (assumed).

                    4. Are you trying to collect them all ?

                      “Muslim-extremists commit more violent terror acts than any other group in the US

                      It depends on your definition of “group” and “terror”, doesn’t it? And the time period? Should we call white people a group? And mass shootings acts of terror? I wonder which group would come out on top?

                      I wasn’t even trying to prove a particular statistic for some political purpose, but merely to show that your insistence to prove muslims are evil based on some statistic or other is stupid and self-serving. And notice I am not calling you personally stupid, just a particular idea to which you cling.

                    5. Should we call white people a group? And mass shootings acts of terror? I wonder which group would come out on top?

                      It depends on what definition of “mass shooting” you use.

                      If you use the one the government does (4 or more people, not including the shooter, shot in the same incident), you will find out that most “mass shootings” are otherwise sane “black” people shooting at random into a crowd of other “black” people. Unlike “white” people, “black” people are not a statistical majority in America, so this is probably not making the point you were trying to make…

                      (citation. click the “source” links.)

                      If, on the other hand, you use the media definition of “mass shooting” which seems to be “a non-black, usually mentally ill person deliberately attacking a group of non-black strangers with the intent of mass casualties and usually suicide-by-cop, especially if politically or religiously motivated” then you will arrive at a different ranking. One which seems to much less accurately describe the actual victims and perpetrators of “mass shootings.”

                    6. “Even after all your special pleading, you arrived at 40%. 40% is not a majority.”

                      even after spelling out in detail why that data is *completely fucking meaningless* because its comparing actual terror deaths to “a huge lump sum of bullshit”, you are still so obtuse as to think that “40% of a bullshit number” is significant of anything.

                    7. Even more so – it would reveal that despite being only 1% of the population, they manage to commit 40%+ of all terror.

                      Winner.

          2. Here is a UK list , you will have to add them up your self. I got a feeling the IRA will come up on top.

            1. So you don’t know anything at all about the US, then.

              The grand effort of trying bring Thinkprogress & Wikipedia to your defense of your unrelated, irrelevant claim is noted here as the upper-limit of your ability to think about the subject.

                1. The grand effort of trying bring Thinkprogress & Wikipedia and memes to your defense of your unrelated, irrelevant claim is noted here as the upper-limit of your ability to think about the subject.

                  1. Logical fallacies are now just silly memes?

                    1. I’ve been asking Uncle Jay (or you) to substantiate the claim made

                      You talked about Europe, which is irrelevant. Pointing out that your submitted material (about the UK) is completely irrelevant to a claim about the US isn’t a fallacy, dipshit.

                      Given the rank stupidity you showed referencing the above chart (explained above), i’m not much interested in your opinion anymore, much less watching you try and struggle to substantiate a claim

                    2. Fallacy \Fal”la*cy\ (f[a^]l”l[.a]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Fallacies
                      (f[a^]l”l[.a]*s[i^]z). [OE. fallace, fallas, deception, F.
                      fallace, fr. L. fallacia, fr. fallax deceitful, deceptive,
                      fr. fallere to deceive. See Fail.]
                      1. Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which
                      misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
                      [1913 Webster]

                      Winning by conquest what the first man lost,
                      By fallacy surprised. –Milton.
                      [1913 Webster]

                      2. (Logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes
                      to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it
                      is not; a sophism.

                      Syn: Deception; deceit; mistake.

      2. There are two ways you can interpret that question.

        Do Muslims commit more terrorist attacks than any other specific cultural group? or

        Do Muslims commit a majority of attacks?

        It seems like he is answering the latter version.

        1. Or he’s just lying.

          1. Could be. Or misinformed. It happens.

            1. Or misinformed.

              or too-stupid to parse the information he does have.

              why, there’s a wealth of possibility! I guess we’ll never know since intellectually dishonest people never actually bother to try and substantiate their claims.

              1. This is what happens when you pop in here with a chapped ass and are completely unfamiliar with Uncle Jay’s body of work.

  5. Hate to be that guy, but Muslims are somewhere around 1% of the population. They are still vastly over-represented here.
    I buy the main premise that Muslim attacks do unfairly get more coverage and Trump is indeed an idiot who exaggerates and lies, but let’s not pretend that Islam isn’t far more prone to inspiring terrorism than any other ideology.

    1. Also, I lied. I don’t hate to be that guy. I don’t know why I say that. I kinda like being that guy.

    2. Please we *know* there’s an on-going terrorist effort stemming from ISIS.

      I know statistically the numbers are still low but these aren’t lone-wolfs events either. I’d alike to add Muslims kill fellow Muslims in greater numbers.

      Question is: Is it worth losing personal liberties for Muslims and the murderous quacks that commit terrorists acts in the name of Islam?

      1. To your last question, no. I’m still a libertarian, and there’s no way to fully stop these attacks. I just think we can admit that Muslims do indeed pose a disproportionately large threat while also arguing that it is still not worth giving up our rights for.

        1. I just think we can admit that Muslims do indeed pose a disproportionately large threat while also arguing that it is still not worth giving up our rights for.

          Agreed.

          Too many people think that criticism of this sort of thing is “islamophobic”, when its actually just a demand that we be honest about facts, and not attempt to dilute actual terror by lumping it in with 1-off hate-crimes and environmental-group-property-attacks

    3. Dang it. Now why dId you have to go and put it all in context? I thought I was the only one allowed to do that!!!

    4. But let’s not pretend that Islam isn’t far more prone to inspiring terrorism than any other ideology.

      Imagine an ISIS recruiter. He points to our military commitment to guarantee that Israel remains the sole nuclear power in the area — on land they obtained by mass genocide. Then he asks, “If nobody else is allowed to have nukes, then why does Israel NEED them … except for more aggression?

      He’d describe how Muslims allowed the Jews back into Jerusalem ..after Christian Crusaders both slaughtered and evicted the “Christ killers” from Jerusalem. And how Crusader, on their way to Jerusalem killed thousands of Jews in the Rhineland Massacres — aka the First Holocaust …. in Germany

      So when Christians were slaughtering Jews, it was Muslims who allowed the Jews back in … the same Jews who now try to evict Muslims from Jerusalem. But there’s no Judea-Christian War on Islam.

      Lotsa brainwashing in American media, eh?

    5. And if everyone who committed an act of terror was a US citizen, that might mean something.

  6. Next up for Georgia State University researchers: Why must every cause of death that a researcher/reporter/etc. wishes to downplay be compared to being struck by lightning?

    1. Getting struck by lightning is the most metal way to go. It is known.

      1. What happened to choking on vomit or being run over by a band mate?

      2. I came close to being struck by lighting once. Do not use a weedwacker in a thunderstorm, kids.

        1. Jesus, these euphemisms.

      3. Having met someone that was struck by lightning, it’s definitely a bad way to go. Looking at his arm the lighting track was clear as day, but the damage around the actual path of the lighting was, well, horrible. He didn’t show the rest of the path, but it must have been awful. To listen to him talk about the dead meat in his body rotting while his body tried to deal with it was horrifying. I never saw him again, but always wondered if he survived. I would bet against it though.

  7. Yea i do think perspective is needed. I would be interested to know if gov actions have reduced risk or not. I assume they catch some people prior due to their spying. Not saying i agree with spying

    I think it is not relevant to compare lighting or motor vehicles since those are assumed and known risks. Mass shootings and terrorism yield fear due to their randomness and being unexpected

    1. exactly I know when thunder is approaching that I need to take cover and I know how that automobile accidents are accidents and not purposeful. But when it comes to terrorism we are mostly defenseless even when armed. they are not comparable situations

  8. So to refute Trump, the media is saying that there were in fact many terrorist attacks, many by Muslims and we did report on them. Nobody ever said journalists were that sharp.

  9. By the way, since we’re on the subject of the Islamonazis and terrorism, I have a question for our wonderful federal government: when are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the mastermind of 9/11) and Nidal Malik Hasan (the perpetrator of the Fort Hood Massacre) going to be executed?

    Fort Hood was more than seven years ago, and 9/11 was nearly a staggering 16 years ago now. Isn’t it way past time that the victims of these atrocities finally got a little bit of justice?

    1. You should write a letter to your congressperson if you have a question for the government.

      1. I very well may ask the President this on Twitter. As a New Yorker I bet he probably has some sympathy for the victims, and as President he’s in a pretty good position now to expedite this despicable situation.

        1. Oh my god, do it. Ask Donald Trump on Twitter. That would be hilarious.

          DOOO IIIIIIT

          1. #FatherFigure

            1. @Domestic_dissident257: “Hi Daddy, when are u gonna fry the guy’s that did 911? Thanks Michael #MAGA”

  10. The 1/114 auto crash death figure sounds odd to me. Could you show the derivation of that one?

  11. I’ve also noticed that if the victims of a terror attack are fair-skinned, it is front page news. If the victims are brown, it is a blurb.

  12. Do yourself a favor, take a picosecond and go over to the GTD, see how many attacks by Muslims are classed as ‘unaffiliated individuals’ and then you’ll understand exactly what Trump’s talking about.

    1. – yes.

      the mendaciousness employed by the faux-social-scientists is to assume that if you’re not a badge-wearing member of an “Official” terror group, you’re not really a terrorist.

      Merely being a muslim who claims inspiration from ISIS or Al Q isn’t enough. By contrast, any “Sovereign Citizen” who rear-ends a cop accidentally? Is part of a well-established Anti-Govt “movement”, and is throw into the Data stew in order to dilute the headline numbers.

      1. Data Stu is what they call me around the office.

        1. Good thing your last name is not Pidaz

    2. But being unaffiliated doesn’t make it not terrorism or not Muslim related. At least not by the standards that Ron lists. Nowhere in the GTD definition is there anything about being part of some recognized terrorist organization.

    3. then you’ll understand exactly what Trump’s talking about.

      Nobody ever knows exactly what Trump is talking about.

      1. Including Trump.

    4. Can’t help but notice that I didn’t get an RB rebuttal…..

      1. You’re way too smart for Ron to tangle with. Besides, I’m guessing he didn’t want to interrupt when he found you stroking your bone in the corner.

    5. How do you know they’e Muslms?

      And since Trump says his supporters would defend him even if he killed somebody in broad daylight, with a crowd of witnesses … can you see why many have reason to doubt Trump supporters, based in Trump’s own words?

  13. Muslim attacks may get more coverage because they’ve happened on six continents, often include high death counts, and always come back to Islam, to the point that Muslims not actively engaged are supportive of the violence.

    1. And don’t forget are rather violent and unique in their attacks.

      Look, the world pretty much acknowledges the problem is radical Islam. We’re not talking small numbers either. These are well-established, sometimes coordinated and well-funded terrorist acts. Ask most cops and they’ll admit their concern and focus is on radical Islam.Heck, I experienced it in my own building when the RCMP monitored it.

      This ain’t ETA. The most violent we’ve seen in Europe were in places like Greece and Italy and they petered out for the most part. The most memorable campaign of terrorism in my lifetime were the IRA.

  14. Muslims commit/attempt an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of terrorist acts when considering that they only represent approximately 1% of the American population. They commit an even higher percentage of crimes such as supporting a terrorist organization. How many non muslims in America traveled or attempted to travel to the Middle East to wage jihad for isis? Or Somalia for al shabab? or Yemen for al qaeda? This article intends to diminish the influence that radical Islam has on violence worldwide. These are the articles that are generally published on politically left sites following a barbaric act of Islamic terror.

    1. How many non muslims in America traveled or attempted to travel to the Middle East to wage jihad for isis? Or Somalia for al shabab? or Yemen for al qaeda?

      I’m going to guess none. But it’s a meaningless question. Of course only Muslims are going to go and fight for a Muslim group that pretty much thinks it’s OK to kill all non-Muslims.

      This article intends to diminish the influence that radical Islam has on violence worldwide.

      I’m not seeing it. It seems to be intending to find an honest accounting of things. Maybe it gets it wrong, I don’t know. But I don’t think that the intent is to deceive.

  15. The FBI cites eco-terrorism as the number form of terrorism in the country. However, their terrorism (which no doubt is committed by rich white kids) rarely injures or kills people. Ergo, it is logical to conclude why ‘Islamic terrorism’ receives the most attention as it kills and injures people. Additionally, there is an organized global component to this type of terrorism, which adds to its newsworthiness.

    1. Ergo, it is logical to conclude why ‘Islamic terrorism’ receives the most attention as it kills and injures people.

      That does seem likely. Terrorist attacks that kill or injure lots of people are going to get the most attention. And that’s true whether it’s Muslims or not.

      1. Indeed, I recall the Oklahoma City Bombing (a white guy) got a whole lot of media coverage for a really long time.

        It’s a simple equation here. The Media reports the most sensational stories the most. I.E. things that make people horrified or have some other visceral reaction to, or that have an unusual component to play up (I.E. Man Bites Dog).

        Perversely, the media will report Muslim terrorism stories more often simply because there is a public interest in those types of stories. Plus, it’s a political narrative for them.

        The simplest explanation I could give is that people associate Muslim’s with bombings because most people still recall 9/11 and for the most part they associate that attack with Muslim’s. It’s going to take a whole lot of ‘mini-terror bombings’ to equal that death toll. I mean, shit, we still talk about Pearl Harbor almost 100 years later and everyone knows it was perpetrated by the Japanese.

        1. Apparently, it isn’t ‘woke’ enough for Reason to use logic when discussing such issues

      2. All one has to do is define terrorism a particular way.

        Like attacking a country which has not declared war on you or has attacked you — that would be terrorism.

        Then, you can bomb a school killdizens and call it collateral damage

        1. Remember Waco

  16. Just because the Caliphate doesn’t provide most of America’s terrorists doesn’t mean that Muslims won’t at some time in the future commit terrorist attacks in America. Look at Europe!? What we need is a commonsense precautionary principle that asks this simple question of all the proggie Mohammed-lovers and Open Borders? traitors: Can you guarantee that Muslims won’t give birth to other Muslims whose kids will kill us? If not, STFU!

    1. Can YOU guarantee that no white middle-class couple will give birth to, and raise, another Presidential assassin? If not, STFU.

  17. Under-reporting depends on what the definition of “under-reporting” is. It’s become a clich? that the media’s initial reports on any incident immediately throw out the “motives for the attack are unclear” line when everybody “knows” it was a terrorist attack but the media is technically reporting strictly the facts – they don’t actually have hard evidence that it was a jihadist attack. So they’re reporting on the incident but under-reporting terrorist attacks by not immediately identifying the incident as such.

    But it is odd that they stick strictly to the facts in only a few instances – if a white guy wearing a MAGA hat and a Confederate flag T-shirt started stabbing random black people in Detroit would we quickly see that “motives for the attack are unclear” line? What about a black guy wearing a BLM hat and an “I’m With Her” T-shirt stabbing random white people in Houston?

    The media is clearly biased if you look at what they report and how they report it, the coverage and the language is not strictly neutral no matter how much they claim they’re reporting “just the facts”. It would be better if they just went ahead and acknowledged their bias right up front and then you know the particular flavor of the grain of salt you gotta use when you read their reporting.

    Which is not to say that Trump isn’t a fat-headed lying sack o’ crap and only his lack of shame and self-awareness allows him to open his fat yap about people talking shit.

  18. For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage.

    Of course, that’s because 2 of those attacks resulted in 95% of all the fatalities for the period.

    But pointing that out is too hard.

    1. G: By my count from the GTD, 56 fatalities stemmed from attacks not associated with jihadism; 27 attacks were.

      1. 56 fatalities stemmed from attacks not associated with jihadism; 27 attacks were.

        my bad – i actually meant “Casualties” which would have included the 130 people wounded in the boston bombing, and making my rough guesstimate ‘better’ .

        (*unrelated footnote – i believe that 27 # is supposed to be 28 = san berdoo killed 14, Boston 4)

        The point i had intended to get across was that the Jihadist attacks which receive lots of press target large groups of people indiscriminately.

        the things categorized in the GTD as “non-islamic terror attacks” *mostly* do not.

        If the jihadist attacks receive disproportionate press, there is obvious reason why beyond merely the aggregate fatalities. (which often includes the perps themselves) Its because the type of attack they represent is usually far more indiscriminate, and aiming at producing mass-casualties even when they fail to.

      2. (also – i was wrongly assuming the set included the Orlando attacks)

        what i take issue with re: methodologies attempting to ‘quantify terror’, is the idea that researchers will take multiple different types of events and simply conflate them as “1” in their data set

        e.g.

        – Drunk guy shoots an indian convenience store owner in the wake of 9/11; turns out he had made racist comments on facebook = 1 right-wing “terror” attack, 1 fatality

        – person tries to set off bomb in Times Square and fails = 1 “terror” attack, 0 fatalities
        (person is categorized as “unaffiliated” because his religion is ‘not apparent’)

        The researcher concludes that “the data here shows right-wing violence is far more deadly than islamic terror”

        That same error – if you want to call it error rather than flawed by design – is repeated over and over and over again in these data sets. the number of mass-casualties in the “non-jihadist” attacks are few

        (in fact, the largest such incident appears to be entirely accidental)

        Just out of curiosity – can you tell out of the 56 fatalities what percentage of those deaths are the target of the attack, and not the perpetrators themselves? If that’s hard to do – why should it be so? It usually appears to be case because researchers are trying to fluff up the ‘non-muslim’ death-count, much like the way gun-control people include suicides.

        1. -additional footnote, which may be redundant

          I also think the idea of trying to compare “muslim jihadist” vs. “all other violence”…

          (which is really what the latter category amounts to when you look at the diversity of things included)

          ….is a terribly dishonest thing to do in the first place, and its done mainly to divert attention away from the uniqueness of the former by placing it in a basket compared to”other stuff that ‘just happens'” which has nothing to do with US policy, and which that policy can really do nothing about.

          e.g. what exactly does arson at a fertilizer company have to do with International Terror? For that matter, what does Dylan Roof’s racism?

          Is it really fair to lump every schizoid person who makes remarks about conspiracies on facebook and then commits violent crimes in together with people claiming allegiance with an international organization which has killed tens of thousands of people, and is responsible for dozens of similar violent mass-killings across the globe?

          It is an intentional attempt to dilute definitions, in my opinion. It tries to pretend that these are all the same sorts of thing, when they are obviously not to any viewer – which is why exactly people choose to make these arguments by aggregating data rather than making some more transparent argument why these different things *should* be considered ‘all the same’

        2. They included an isolated incident of presumed arson, with unknown perps in a terrorism database???

          Figures lie and liars figure. Oh, and 100% of all statistics are numbers.

          Bailey, you would be more credible if you smeared yourself with actual bullshit and gave us an interpretive dance.

          1. They included an isolated incident of presumed arson, with unknown perps in a terrorism database??

            Bailey, you would be more credible if you smeared yourself with actual bullshit and gave us an interpretive dance.

            The first sentence destroys any credibility of the second … doubling down on the hatred-spewing thuggery. Did your parents never teach you about acceptable behavior?

    2. Gilmore has a penchant for fucking up, covered by bullshit,

      If 10 Christians each kill one Muslim, and one Muslim kills 11 Christians, the Gilmore beats his chest and screams into the sky that Muslims (as a group) are more terrorist than Christians (as a group)

      Or perhaps it’s not even a Judeo-Christian/Muslim issue might all of this be imagined by a few drooling imbeciles and a while lot of gullible bobbleheads agreeing to … whatever?

      But pointing out his bullshit is too hard. NOT.

    3. Gilnore seems obsessed with saying stupid things … with sarcasm.

      If ten Christians each kill one Muslim, and one Muslim kills 11 Christians, then
      a) Muslims, as a group are more barbaric than Christians as a group.
      b) The Muslim killer should get more new reports than the 11 Christian murderers because, well … he’s Gilmore.

      But pointing that out is too hard. NOT.

  19. “Such fears are indeed misplaced. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years”

    There are reasons why one should fear jihadist terror attacks other than that one might be killed by them. Some fear the effects of pervasive surveillance, some fear the creation of vast security and spying organizations, some fear endless unwinnable wars. These affect everyone.

    1. And there is absolutely no risk in downplaying risk.

    2. m: Please lick on the links embedded in this sentence at the end of the article: Given that our government has already squandered more than $500 billion on homeland security, while encroaching on our liberties, it is vital that Americans keep the threat of terrorism in perspective.

  20. More amusement about statistical mendacity

    here they* try and show that more ‘native born’ Americans commit terror acts than ‘foreigners’ (which includes everything from ‘naturalized’ indv. to permanent residents, illegals, etc).

    scroll over the dark-green area of “native borns”, and note the names.

    go to the bottom of that page, where they compare the “muslims” versus, “non-religious AND Unknown”… and do they same

    If you do that, and still think anyone in the business of trying to “quantify” terror has an honest, intellectually-sincere bone in their body, you’re brain-dead.

    [*”they” being New America foundation, source of 70% of the left-wing attempt to try and claim “muslims aint the problem!”; the remainder being scattered data sources, including Ari Prelenger’s report on Right-Wing Terror from a few years ago]

    1. That one doesn’t seem so bad. If they are trying to defeat claims that Muslims aren’t the problem, they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

      1. They are the same source the NYT cited above. Yes, when you look at the details of their claims, its pretty weaksauce.

        When that same data is presented elsewhere in aggregate (sans the transparency i mentioned), its baldly misleading.

    2. Speaking of mendacity (Gilmore’s)

      Walk into a supermarket, the produce department.

      Go to the bin marked “Oranges” Pick one up and look at its color.

      Now to the bin marked “Apples.” Pick one up and look at it’s color.

      If the colors are different. you have seen PROOF. with your own eyes, that leftwing perfessers and other proggies are causing lettuce to wilt. Because it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy and snide … even after George Soros began financing snopes.

  21. The dishonesty at Reason really makes me sad.
    Islam gets the coverage because far and away, they’ve racked up the body counts.

    Terrorist Attacks in the US, 2010 – Present

    Category Dead1 Injured1 Casualties1

    Islam 78 432 510
    Santiago-Ruiz – Nuts 5 42 47
    AntiFed 6 22 28
    Whitey 21 7 28
    AntiAbortion 3 9 12
    AntiPolice 6 6 12

    1. Note that while Muslims terrorists create the overwhelming majority of US terrorist casualties, they are only 1% of the population.

      Muslims are to US terrorist casualties what Jews are to Nobel prizes.

      1. The same Jews who obtained their land by committing mass genocide?

        What you say makes no sense. They’re 1% of the population but commit the majority of terrorist attacks is called a false equivalence

        Do you also believe the Quran say to kill all the infidels … but of all three Abrahamic scriptures, ONLY the Old Testament has that command from God, despite all three religions worshiping the same God. Why is that?

      2. The same Jews who obtained their land by committing mass genocide?

        What you say makes no sense. They’re 1% of the population but commit the majority of terrorist attacks is called a false equivalence

        Do you also believe the Quran say to kill all the infidels … but of all three Abrahamic scriptures, ONLY the Old Testament has that command from God, despite all three religions worshiping the same God. Why is that?

    2. “Science Correspondent”

      Sad

      1. “Science Correspondent” Sad.

        The sumbitch even says the earth is NOT the center of the universe — so the chuch has issued a life senrence. Also sad.

        Your fellow hate-spewing bigots can be found at Breitbart, Infowars, WND and non-news at Fox, plus hundred of smaller conspiracy websites..

    3. For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (

      So, *under represented*, by body count.

      So sad.

      1. b: Don’t be sad. Have a great weekend.

        1. Apparently, I care more about Reason’s lack of journalistic integrity than you do.

          I’d be embarrassed to have put out your numbers as a *commenter*, let alone the “Science Correspondent” for Reason.

          1. I’d be embarrassed to have put out your numbers as a *commenter*, let alone the “Science Correspondent” for Reason

            Says the “Genius” who started this thread by saying news coverage should be based on body count.

            In his wacky world, if ten Christians kill one Muslim each an one Muslim kills 11 Christians, than the Muslim killer should get more media coverage than all the Christian killers combined!

            But he’s not a bigot!
            And kinda week in science.

    4. yeah, it’s a dishonest article.

      And it conflates arsonists and lone nut jobs (like Dylan Roof) with real terrorists.

      Wtf is it with all the islamonazi love here anyway? Doesn’t Reason realize Fundamental Islamic beliefs are at odds with libertarianism?

      The risk of Islamic terrorism is inflated by the media but yeah, it’s a real risk. And one major attack can seriously fuck people’s lives up.

      1. And it conflates arsonists and lone nut jobs (like Dylan Roof) with real terrorists.

        Learn what terrorist means here.

        Wtf is it with all the islamonazi love here anyway?

        We don’t share your blatant bigotry — here defined as applying a negative stereotype to an entire group. Do you also believe White Men can’t jump. Women were created to be mothers and homemakers? Sex is only for procreation?

        Doesn’t Reason realize Fundamental Islamic beliefs are at odds with libertarianism?

        (lol) The Non-Aggression Principle comes from Islam, as it regards self-defense. Christ preached TOTAL submission to aggressors, and NO self-defense. Muhammad had several parables showing self-defense. For example, “kill the infidels” if they attack the temple. But do not pursue them when they run away, which is no longer self defense.

        Now if you mean Muslim FundamentalISM — then many Christian Fundamentalists are equally at odds. ISIS recruiters point to hysteria like yours as “proof” of a Judeo-Christian War on Islam.

      2. Wtf is it with all the islamonazi love here anyway?

        Open Borders Uber Alles

        Doesn’t Reason realize Fundamental Islamic beliefs are at odds with libertarianism?

        Needz moar domestic servants for their homes and human cogs for their corporate masters.

  22. b: The study uses data from the GTD which does not yet include 2016 which means that 2016 Orlando attack (49 dead) is not included. Without those data, the number of fatalities resulting from jihadism falls to 29 between 2010 and 2015 in U.S. Dishonest?

    1. There was something big that happened in 2015 though. Luckily the stats were focused on US attacks only.

      Still not seeing that clear dividing line between Trump’s “alternative facts”, and the narrative-pushing news, even when they back it up with (cherry picked) evidence.

      1. BK: No one is saying that jihadist DON’T commit terrorist attacks. However, perusing the GTD will show you just how popular terrorism is instance and places that not related to eschatological delusions of radical Islamic ideology. For instance, a lot of tribalist separatism is going on around the world.

        1. Perusing the GTD will show you just how popular terrorism is instance and places that not related to eschatological delusions of radical Islamic ideology.

          actually the main take-away i get from the data set is that it has such a wide-definition of “Terror” (particularly in the US) as to make the idea of “terror” entirely meaningless.

          e.g. between 2000 and 2011, Environmental groups (e.g. Coalition to Save the Preserves,Earth Liberation Front,Animal Liberation Front) represented between 30-40% of ALL “domestic terror”.

          and ~80% of “terror” attacks had no injuries/fatalities at all.

          (*Strangely entries for these orgs mostly vanish after 2011)

          As i said above – their data collection seems to be an effort to stretch definitions of “terror” to the point of meaninglessness, and in so doing, position “islamic-motivated violence” as a small category in the wide world of violence, and therefore something no one should be particularly concerned with.

          1. position “islamic-motivated violence” as a small category in the wide world of violence, and therefore something no one should be particularly concerned with.

            Are you pathetic, stupid, dishonest … or all three (a bigot)?

            Your wacko theories are scattered all down the page. You say media coverage should be based on body count .. and all the goobers rush to agree. So if 10 Christians kill 1 Muslim each, in 10 separate attacks …. and one Muslim kills 11 Christians in a single attack … Muslim attack should get more media reports than all 10 Christian killers combined!

            Now you’re pissed … PISSED … because YOU define terrorism as “done by Muslims” and EVERYONE who does not is some brainwashed snowflake.

            Ron Bailey must be diplomatic. I have described here the actions of what Trump described as someone who would defend him even if he killed somebody in broad daylight, with a crowd of witnesses. A fawning ass-kisser.

    2. Ask the Yamal proxy.

    3. So, let’s factor out the biggest terrorist event in the US this decade, because Narrative.

      Ok, fine. Factor out Orlando.
      Islam still biggest category for deaths, and accounts for vast majority of casualties, while only 1% of population.

      Row Labels Dead1 Injured1 Casualties1
      Islam 29 379 408
      Orlando 49 53 102
      Santiago-Ruiz – Nuts 5 42 47
      AntiFed 6 22 28
      Whitey 21 7 28
      AntiPolice 6 6 12
      AntiAbor 3 9 12
      Nkorea 0 0 0

      Keep digging, Ron.

      1. b: I am not the one calling the other “dishonest.” Just saying.

        1. Yeah, because I’m not dishonest.

          All your arguments here just don’t wash with a moments analysis.

          So if you’re not dishonest, what is it? Incompetence? You really thought that you made a good analysis?

          1. Yeah, because I’m not dishonest

            The only other explanation is retarded. But if you insist!

            All your arguments here just don’t wash with a moments analysis.

            AND a gasbag!

            C’mon, you can do it … 10 MORE hate-spewing trollings on the page. Have a sandwich. Take a deep breath. Kiss your “OBAMA IS A MUSLIM” poster and add some more for us to laugh at!!

            SHOUT DOWN DISAGREEMENT.

            1. It’s interesting how you seem to want to misrepresent how your opponents are posting. I didn’t find anything unhinged about their posts. A little agitated maybe, but still reasoned arguments citing evidence to back them up. I don’t understand why you choose to attack the people instead of the argument? Repeating the same 1 Christian/1 murder, 1 Muslim/ 10 murder thing again and again just isn’t that compelling. There is obviously some dishonesty in the way the numbers are being reported. There is nothing bigoted about pointing that out which most people realize, so you are not convincing logical people just by labeling people haters.

      2. b: Also there is a considerable discrepancy between the numbers to which you link and the GTD.

        1. I actually looked through each Wikipedia entry and assigned a category.

          If you’d like to argue the wikipedia data, I sent you the spreadsheet with how I classified each even – see Subject: “Wikipedia US Terrorism data, classified”.

          Did you do the same with the GTD?

          You don’t supply numbers, just note “discrepancy”. Not an argument.

        2. Data filtered 2010-2015

          Islam wins again!

          Row Labels Dead1 Injured1 Casualties1
          Islam 29 349 378
          AntiFed 6 22 28
          Whitey 20 7 27
          AntiPolic 6 6 12
          AntiAbor 3 9 12
          Nkorea 0 0 0

          1. Sent you the updated file with a pivot filtered on date.

            Numbers above should remove 34 Injuries from Sept 2016 Ahmad Khan Rahimi bombings from Islam for 2010-2015.

            Doesn’t change conclusion.

          2. Sent you the updated file with a pivot filtered on date.

            Numbers above should remove 34 Injuries from Sept 2016 Ahmad Khan Rahimi bombings from Islam for 2010-2015.

            Doesn’t change conclusion.

    4. The problem with all such analysis is that the actual incident count is very low unless you start counting BS like far-off threats. In this case, the Boston bombing totally dominates the dataset. The GTD is also pretty notorious for discounting affiliation claims if they are not confirmed. Case-in-point: they say the San Bernardino shooters were claimed by an ISIS affiliate to be members, but the GTD lists them as unaffiliated individuals. In theory, the paper accounts for that by simply asking which incidents had Muslim perpetrators, but they don’t clarify which incidents they are counting.

  23. What it looks like to me, from a list of their cases, is that the charge of “terrorism” is one that is being predictably overused by law enforcement.

  24. I haven’t seen GILMORE? this fired up in a thread since the time Welch admitted to wearing a backpack and shorts.

    1. I think he’s filling in for John today.

    2. His hate for muslims probably started that time he went to a Persian party and ended up being the least well dressed person there.

      1. GILMORE? doesn’t hate Muslims. He’s merely concerned with accuracy in reporting. No really.

    3. I haven’t seen GILMORE? this fired up in a thread

      its only because i’ve looked at these data sets multiple times and i keep seeing the same bullshit over and over again.

      As i mentioned in very first post i made above re: the NYT cover-page

      its a perpetual attempt to mislead by lumping together disparate violence in a ‘miscellaneous’ category and then try and compare it to *actual islamic-terror*, and claim that the latter is less-significant in context.

      Only idiots like CMW swallow it wholesale; but other people do remain in the dark about *why* its such bullshit.

      its basically the same exact thing the gun-control people do when they lump suicides in with ‘Gun Deaths’ and pretend that their data is indicative of ‘violence’ 3x worse than it actually is.

      But in this case people in the media try and pretend its perfectly OK to pretend that ELF and ISIS are comparable ‘terror threats’, and never get called on it.

    4. I haven’t seen GILMORE? this fired up in a thread since the time Welch admitted to wearing a backpack and shorts.

      The stakes are higher — as a challenge to his obviously raging hatred.
      So The Donald is paying him more.

      That’s how we get shit that’s crazy for even him. News coverage should be based on body count!!!!
      If 10 Christians each kill one Muslim in 10 attacks. and a Muslim kills 10 Christians in a single attack, then the Muslim killer should get more news coverage than the Christian murderers!!!!!

      Even scarier … how many AGREE!

      1. Ok, I’ve got to ask…

        Why is accusing others of “hate” and “authoritarianism” the go-to rebuttal for the high horse posters like you and michael hihn?

        Are you guys really so immature to constantly try using the same few phrases perceived to be in opposition to libertarianism as your “digs” at other posters?

        I’m fairly new here and the immaturity and hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You guys accuse everyone else of bigotry, authoritarianism, and hate yet you guys spew more trash talk, hyperbole, and name calling than anyone else here. And you literally try degrading any person who disagrees with you.

        People and communicators like you guys are why so many think libertarians are just pretentious douche bags and we gain little traction. You keep talking down to people and they’ll stop listening, even if you know you’re right.

        1. There is no “…you and Michael Hihn”. That is Michael Hihn-just changing his socks. If you scroll up you’ll see where he posted very similar responses in reply to Gilmore at 9:58 and 10:11.

        2. Hear, hear!

          I’m scrolling down hoping for interesting discussion and there is John Galt’s post mucking it up with baseless accusations of bigtory and retardation. Real highbrow stuff.

          1. His obvious trolling actually bolsters the conspiracy theory.

  25. So, let’s factor out the biggest terrorist event in the US this decade, because Narrative.

    Ok, fine. Factor out Orlando.
    Islam still biggest category for deaths, and accounts for vast majority of casualties, while only 1% of population.

    Row Labels Dead1 Injured1 Casualties1
    Islam 29 379 408
    Orlando 49 53 102
    Santiago-Ruiz – Nuts 5 42 47
    AntiFed 6 22 28
    Whitey 21 7 28
    AntiPolice 6 6 12
    AntiAbor 3 9 12
    Nkorea 0 0 0

    Keep digging, Ron.

  26. So what?

    Drumpf does not want them anyway

    1. LOL11!!!!111!!!!!1!1!!!! DRUMPF!!!11!!11!!!!!!11!1!1!!

  27. I am so sick of hearing about Muslim terrorist. Our government is murdering noncombatants in the Middle East on a daily basis. So who is the terroist. The only gripes I have about Muslims in general is that they scream and holler about homosexuals while they go around poking young boys in the butt. The other things is they claim they they want to come here for a better life then do everything they can to turn America into another Saudi Arabia. And please stop telling me Islam is a religion of peace. Judaism, Christianity and Islam is so bloodstained I am suprised they don’t choke on their hypocrisy. If all you idiots would spend as much time and money in helping one another as trying to kill each other the world actually be a Utopia.

  28. Ok Ron here is where your article and the study in question fails…

    I go to the DB you linked and search all terror attacks in the US from 1990 to 2015, the most recent 25 year period then I sort by fatalities in descending order and here are the perpetrators for all attacks where either at least 5 people were killed …

    1. – Al Quaida
      – Al Quaida
      – Al Quaida
      – Anti Government Millitias
      – Al Quaida
      – Islamic Fudamentalists, possibly inspired by ISIS
      -Unknown as no perps have been caught and no one has claimed responsibility (which means it is categorically not a terror attack and should not be on the list
      – Disaffected High School Students with no political motive (Sorry Columbine was not a terror attack and fails to meet the criteria you define as as there was no larger goal or even discernable attempt to send a message)
      – Islamic Fundamentalist likely inspired by Al Quaeda
      – Lone Wolf Racist
      – White Supremacist
      – Muslim Extremist
      – Anti Government Extremists
      – Anti Abortion Activist
      – Unhinged individual with bipolar disorder (while the shooter claimed a vaguely terror related motive calling this terrorism is highly suspect as his mental health issues likely had more to do with it)
      – A random white dude (again this fails to meet the defined criteria as there was no larger agenda or attempt to send a wider message and an alternative explaination of an existing parking dispute between the victims and assailant was a backdrop to the incident)
      – Muslim Extremist
      – Muslim Extremist

    2. – African American seeking revenge for Brown/Garner deaths
      – Muslim Extremist
      – KKK anti Semites
      – Muslim Extremists
      – Tax protester (again highly suspect to call this terrorism as he had no wider political goal and there was no attempt to send a message, his motivation seems to clearly have been revenge over a tax dispute)
      – White Militias
      – Conservative American opposed to Progressivism
      – Impossible to say as they never found the person responsible and there is considerable doubt about the guilt of the one they tried to blame it on.
      – Impossible to say as they never found the person responsible and there is considerable doubt about the guilt of the one they tried to blame it on.
      – White Supremacist
      – Christian Homophobes
      – Anti Abortion activists
      – Unknown (Once again with not even a suspect and no organization claiming responsibility calling this terror is highly suspect)
      – Muslim Extremists
      – Anti Abortion Activists
      – Unknown (There actually were apparent claims of a terror organization being behind it with possible Neo Nazi ties but even the FBI no longer believes a terror motivation and classifies the terror letters as cover for a traditional train robbery)

    3. Expanding the criteria to a or the total victim count (killed + injured) exceeded 4 leaves us with 48 attacks summed up as follows
      Muslims – 17 attacks, 3048 killed, 454+ injured (there are no stats for injury counts on 9-11)
      Racists – 10 attacks, 24 killed, 26 injured
      Anti Abortion Attacks – 5 attacks, 8 killed, 127 injured
      Anti Government Attacks – 3 attacks, 174 killed, 654 injured
      Conservative Political Attacks – 2 attacks, 2 killed, 7 injured
      Unknown – 5 attacks, 7 killed, 18 injured

      The final 4 incidents accounting for 34 fatalities and 262 injured should no be called terrorism and that is being very generous on several other of the attacks.

      Are you starting to see the trend? Even if any given Muslim terror attack is covered beyond what is justified based on it’s scope relative to some of these other attacks the total trend of Muslim terror attacks being both significantly more frequent and more deadly than any other type of terror attack, even using this very generous application of their definition of a terror attack

      1. Are you sure you’re not the Science Correspondent at Reason?

  29. Finally one note on the quality of this database.

    It is shit.

    Anyone basing any “research” on this piece of garbage needs to have their sciencing license revoked. It is absolutely clear they they went as far out of their way as possible to artificially inflate the number of non muslim “terror attacks” give the number of cases where the perpetrator was never discovered and no one claimed responsibility (however I did not challenge such attacks in my summary). I also note that basically any attack by anyone who has ever made a racist remark is automatically considered terrorism if the victim is a minority one category I find suspiciously lacking is Black attacks of exactly the same type against whites, jews, and hispanics. Combine that with several outright errors, from a couple of events being double listed (eg the Boston Marathon bombing is in there twice) to their uncritically accepting the FBI’s accusations in the Anthrax attacks of 2001 even though there isn’t even enough evidence to convict him on a preponderance of the evidence standard to their not knowing or acknowledging that the FBI does not believe that the Sons of the Gestapo ever existed as anything but a smoke screen to cover up a train robbery.

    1. Most social policy info is clear propaganda.

      No one should trust the data without looking at it. As you have done.

      If you have the data in easily consumable form, I suggest you send to Ron. It looks like the dog ate his homework.

      1. lol well I literally compiled that in about 1 hour of perusing the database he linked in the article.

        He could easily have done the same and rather than confirming his bias discovered the “study” he is writing about is critically flawed but he didn’t.

        Another flaw in the study I should point out…

        They are measuring news coverage by counting “news articles”

        Here is the problem, half a dozen articles in a local paper counts the same as a single story at a dozen major media outlets so an attack which is extensively covered regionally but doesn’t make a footnote in national news coverage it can easily look as heavily covered as a story that was passingy covered by the national media.

        Next problem it ignores the media axiom of “if it bleeds it leads” the media coverage will increase exponentially with death toll. They claim to have somehow controlled for that but given that in the last 5 years Islamic terror attacks would account for 186 of the 240 casualties among the most deadly actual terror attacks in that time period it is easy to see why they would get the bulk of the coverage

        1. given that in the last 5 years Islamic terror attacks would account for 186 of the 240 casualties among the most deadly actual terror attacks in that time period it is easy to see why they would get the bulk of the coverage

          This is the point i tried (badly) to make here

          (but made the mistake of calling them “fatalities” rather than “Casualties”, and just applied a ‘whipped out of my ass huge-majority’ number – 95% instead of what seems to be 77%)

          And as i said there – anyone who spent 5 mins looking at the numbers would apply some common sense and say,

          “Well, it seems like the issue is that “terror” which tries to cause mass-casualties – whether it achieves them or not – gets lots of press”

          which would strike me as the obvious-take-away.

          Anything else is pretty much just handwaving.

  30. lets not be worried about ISIS even though they have now destroyed several countries and refugees are fleeing those countries as fast as they can so let not make a big deal out of it when a terrorist does attack people in the U.S. unlike some local lune who’s influence is limited to himself.

    that said most of where ISIS is, is because of OBAMA

  31. Complete and utter bullshit. 9/11 happened, perhaps that helped caused public opinion to be suspicious towards that abhorrent ideology. The lefts obsessive pandering towards Islam is disgusting. I suggest to Ronald Bailey to show this article to the victims of the Westminster Bridge attacks and see what their opinions are. Islam needs a reformation, go to the slums of Europe and see how safe you feel, and STILL the west gets the blame for failing to properly “assimilate” the refugees, no excuses.

  32. Complete and utter bullshit. 9/11 happened, perhaps that helped caused public opinion to be suspicious towards that abhorrent ideology. The lefts obsessive pandering towards Islam is disgusting. I suggest to Ronald Bailey to show this article to the victims of the Westminster Bridge attacks and see what their opinions are. Islam needs a reformation, go to the slums of Europe and see how safe you feel, and STILL the west gets the blame for failing to properly “assimilate” the refugees, no excuses.

  33. Most people can make a distinction between sending a threatening letter and a radicalized Jihadist running over hundreds of helpless victims. Only one of them is a terrorist act in the sense the term is used. And yet, for terrorism counting purposes, they (apparently) both count.

    So the liberals can cling to this charming illusion that there are way more non Muslim terrorists, citing data that includes eco terrorists blowing up empty vans and sabotaging labs, or some left leaning Latino extremists and random Euro separatists who have virtually no global outreach.

    Muslim terrorism captures our imagination with their ultra grotesque and insanely barbaric brutality. Like carving off someone’s head while he’s conscious, brainwashing kids to execute victims, crucifying women, stoning women, etc. And there’s a connecting bridge to a definable terrorist ideology.

    Islamic terror is nearly a category of its own. It’s is incomparable to any obscure violent gangs or cabals that currently exist in the world both in terms of its barbarity and reach. Why is it unusual that the media fixate upon Muslim atrocity? If a Klan member shouted “Heil Hitler” and executed a Jewish family, the media will give that level of attention equal to a gang homicide?

  34. Ronald the appeaser is using the same media and academia leftist as his sources…

    people like you are a disgrace………

  35. Ronald the appeaser is using the same media and academia leftist as his sources…

    people like you are a disgrace………

    1. Not a big enoigh asshole for you?

  36. Why do states get a pass on moral judgment in the use of coercion and intimidation to achieve political or social goals. When the US government sent soldiers into state capitals to enforce racial integration, it used terrorism against the states in every sense of the word terrorism. But the federal government always insists it has the moral authority to do what would be heinous crimes if anyone else were to do it. Under the Constitution, the only right the federal government has to interfere with the laws of the states is to ensure that they have a Republican form of government, meaning that no state may be ruled by a king or a tyrant. I think that maybe the wrong side won the Civil War in the 19th century. Maybe it’s time for another go.

    1. When the US government sent soldiers into state capitals to enforce racial integration, it used terrorism against the states in every sense of the word terrorism.

      Behold the sheer INSANITY of the alt-rght and white nationalists … orginally enabled by Ron Paul (shudder)

      Under the Constitution, the only right the federal government has to interfere with the laws of the states is to ensure that they have a Republican form of government, meaning that no state may be ruled by a king or a tyrant. I think that maybe the wrong side won the Civil War in the 19th century. Maybe it’s time for another go.

      I’d kill YOU with my bare hands.

      Ninth Amendment — Ron Paul’s cult ignores this one.
      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      Translation: Forbids ALL levels of government to deny or disparage ALL fundamental rights, INCLUDING those not mentioned in the Constitution.

      Also see 14th. And READ the 10th.

    2. Under the Constitution, the only right the federal government has to interfere with the laws of the states is to ensure that they have a Republican form of government

      Wrong. The federal government has the *responsibility* of enforcing the constitution. That includes a number of provisions beyond ensuring a vote.

      1. The federal government has the *responsibility* of enforcing the constitution. That includes a number of provisions beyond ensuring a vote.

        As detailed immediately above. One major responsibility is held by the Judiciary, defending individuals from abuse by all levels of government — including the strict limits on state power .. the most dramatic being, perhaps, President Eisenhower dispatching federal troops to defend the equal rights of nine school kids — when Arkansas had activated it’s state militia, armed force against nine kids. It was a milestone in the civil rights movement and one of the most shocking abuses by a state government. The south was still so shamefully racist in 1957.

  37. I ALWAYS check when some wacko email screeches “ignored the the mainstream media” — which is always bullshit, so Trump’s cult has been growing for decades on the alt-right) Bailey remains THE best journalist at Reason.

    (I admit NOT reading comments here, to avoid those goobers who would defend Trump of killing someone in broad daylight .. and be PROUD to do so!)

    1. Bailey remains THE best journalist at Reason

      A title for which less and less pride is justified every year.

      I agree that Ron is better than most here, but Ed is better than Ron. I don’t think Ed is even a numbers guy, but I’ve never seen him be anywhere near this sloppy with data or argument. Ed doesn’t just make arguments, he makes good ones, even when I disagree, which is often.

  38. Do not use a weedwacker in a thunderstorm, kids.

    Any port in a weedwhacker thunderstorm.

  39. But… Roof’s murders were not terrorism. Nor were Deal’s. Please distinguish – discriminate if you will – between serial killers and religious murderers who are motivated by devotion to a divine command.
    “Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000.”
    Let’s keep it that way.

    1. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion, If you insist on creating definitions, then you can deny and evade the truth on anything.

      Let’s keep it that way.

      At least you agree that the hysteria is … hysterical.

  40. Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000.

    Yeah, but my risk of having to live under a statist progressive, put in power by immigrants from illiberal and oppressive parts of the world, is better than 50-50 and rapidly rising. And the probability of having to pay for social services, education, health care, etc. of those people is 100%.

    1. It’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

      Yeah, but my risk of having to live under a statist progressive, put in power by immigrants from illiberal and oppressive parts of the world, is better than 50-50

      If you are a Birther, the the odds of being totally crackers are 150%.

      Umm, do you believe Sharia Law can be implemented without amending the Constitution?

      1. Umm, do you believe Sharia Law can be implemented without amending the Constitution?

        Did the Left bother to “amend” the constitution, or did they just overthrow it by pretending it said things it didn’t?

    2. You’re correct about the threat posed by immigrant statist voters, but that doesn’t really answer the argument that the threat from jihadist terrorism is minimal.

      I think you need some game and evolutionary theory for that.

      People respond differently to threats from groups organized to harm and control you and threats from inanimate objects, or simply random violence.

      Most people would see that such threatening groups require a larger response than lightening strikes, and that that judgment is somewhat programmed into us by evolution.

      Groups can be deterred. Zeus, not so much.

      And if the groups are not deterred, they will achieve their aims through terror, because group attacks provoke emotion in ways that lightening attacks don’t. You can complain about the irrationality of it, but I think the science shows that we actually have such a cognitive bias for fear of and response to such attacks built into us, whether or not you want to call it irrational.

      I’m betting that those groups with that “irrational bias” are the ones who *fought back* against their attackers and lived, while those who were content to take the damage simply took more and more of it.

      Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

      Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

      1. You’re correct about the threat posed by immigrant statist voters,

        And them damn niggers should have never got the vote either.
        Senator McCarthy was correct, Voter registration should require a loyalty oath

        Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

        I’ve read that ISIS cites the same quote

        1. Blacks, being the descendants of people kidnapped and taken across the world to be held in bondage, had a good claim for not being thrown out of the country against their wishes when freed, even if their addition to the polity caused changes to it that the majority didn’t like. You take it you bought it.

          Illegal immigrants have no such claim.

      2. Some fellow on twitter had a wonderful quote from Jefferson on the game theoretic aspects of putting up with violence.

        Jefferson to Adams after meeting with the Islamist Ambassador of Tripoli in England,

        Not another penny of tribute, Millions towards defense.

        Ron:

        Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000.

        Thomas Jefferson knows that’s not the way to calculate response to tyranny.

  41. Ronald Bailey – R.E.A.L. has done its own research on this as part of human rights campaigns to challenge extremist ideologies, which are the real root behind any terrorist attack in America or the rest of the world, whether it is White Supremacist, Anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Government, Islamist extremist, etc. In fact, the overwhelming number of extremist plots/attacks were in Islamist extremist-based, over the past 8 years. The figures are not even close. R.E.A.L. provides our list of terror plot/attack, date, names, locations. Glad to review this with any other specific list that tells us what we are missing. But really to acknowledge these threats to human rights, not wave them away. It is not rational. If the comments section here allowed me, I would post our listing here. Glad to discuss real facts.
    http://www.realcourage.org/201…..extremism/

  42. Ronald Bailey – R.E.A.L. has done its own research on this as part of human rights campaigns to challenge extremist ideologies, which are the real root behind any terrorist attack in America or the rest of the world, whether it is White Supremacist, Anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Government, Islamist extremist, etc. In fact, the overwhelming number of extremist plots/attacks were in Islamist extremist-based, over the past 8 years. The figures are not even close. R.E.A.L. provides our list of terror plot/attack, date, names, locations. Glad to review this with any other specific list that tells us what we are missing. But really to acknowledge these threats to human rights, not wave them away. It is not rational. If the comments section here allowed me, I would post our listing here. Glad to discuss real facts.
    http://www.realcourage.org/201…..extremism/

  43. High school girls coffee cup use of high-quality ceramic, non-toxic harmless to the body. Encountered hot water will change color, reduce the temperature to restore the original black.

  44. my buddy’s mother gets 66 each hour on the internet, she has been out of a job for twelve months.. the previous month her payment was 16114 just working on the internet four hours per day. go here to this
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  45. How many people died on 9-11?

  46. This article is ridiculously low-effort. Media coverage pretty much correlates to damage/loss of life and magnitude of an event, which also, not so coincidentally, happens to correlate with Islamic extremism.

    The other cases get “under reported” because they’re almost all nothing burgers. “Unknown assailant threw something,” firecrackers in a trash can, spray paint in an art gallery, an “attempted arson.”

    Most of the non-Jihadist attacks were either unknown perps or property damage with no injuries or deaths. Exactly the kind of stories that get low coverage.

    The only thing that surprised me digging through those was the number of leftist and anarchist attacks I’d not seen before.

  47. Nope can’t happen here.
    If the EU just applied a heavier dose of cultural arrogance, you know, give all the welfare state benefits so that they leave their culture behind and embrace the one provided.
    Still waiting for Libertarian Barney Force Field. ” I love you, you love me”.
    But hey, we don’t have enough bat shit crazies here anyway. So import them, Whether they are first generation bat shit crazies or second, we always need more

  48. To me, the fallacy in the article and the study is that it mixes two distinctly different acts of terrorism: acts against property and acts against people. Terrorist acts against property will more likely be mostly just generate local interest whereas a shooting at night club generates national and world interest. People can picture themselves at a night club more so than building a house.

    If it bleeds it leads is the simple maxim.

  49. I went to the original database, and searched for The Boston Marathon Bombing, the DC Beltway Sniper attacks, and the Fort Hood attack.

    Boston was in there, but Fort Hood and the DC sniper weren’t. I tried several different search terms, as well as sorting by date, and nope, no sign of them.

    When a “study” leaves out rather important data, it’s rather worthless.

    1. Fort Hood was there, the DC Sniper so far as I could find was not and the Boston Marathon bombing was somehow in there twice with 2 different death counts but the same number of wounded,

      That said they did also include several things which were categorically not terrorism. For example a fertilizer plant fire with no identified perpetrator, no known motive, and nobody claiming credit for it as terrorism. Yes it was arson but without knowing who did it or why how can you say it is terrorism.

  50. It’s only terrorism if you’re brown

  51. I don’t care who commits the most terrorist acts, I care who commits the most heinous terrorist acts.

  52. Most “terrorist” attacks are made by individuals, not movements. That is the difference between Islamic terror attacks and most others. Most terrorists have no chance of using nuclear or biological attacks, Islamic terrorists, with their organizations have an outside chance of doing so. There are reasons to worry more about Islamic attacks, though none are really dangers to the Republic. They are dangers to individuals. A Timothy McVay or a Dylan Roof happens, but they are not concerted long term efforts of multiple individuals. Another reason is the number of dead. Arson of empty Churches is not the same as an assault on a gay bar with multiple weapons and quick reloads trying to kill as many people as possible. Count the intentionally dead by terrorist, and Islam moves to the top.

  53. Most “terrorist” attacks are made by individuals, not movements. That is the difference between Islamic terror attacks and most others. Most terrorists have no chance of using nuclear or biological attacks, Islamic terrorists, with their organizations have an outside chance of doing so. There are reasons to worry more about Islamic attacks, though none are really dangers to the Republic. They are dangers to individuals. A Timothy McVay or a Dylan Roof happens, but they are not concerted long term efforts of multiple individuals. Another reason is the number of dead. Arson of empty Churches is not the same as an assault on a gay bar with multiple weapons and quick reloads trying to kill as many people as possible. Count the intentionally dead by terrorist, and Islam moves to the top. In fact, in the last ten years Islamic terrorism has killed more people than all the other “terrorist” attacks combined.

  54. “Do Muslims Commit Most U.S. Terrorist Attacks?” the headline asks.

    The subheadline says “No,” but never answers the followup question: Which group DOES commit the most US terrorist attacks?

    1. according to that GTD dataset, it would be “Earth Liberation Front” – radical leftist environmentalists.

      of course clarifying that would reveal that the data set is riddled with “crimes” that no sane person would consider comparable to jihadist-mass-murderers, and make the claims seem dishonest.

  55. but what percentage of Islamic terrorism is committed by Muslims?

  56. Why are people bring Europe into the discussion the article is only speaking about in the United states. Lets stay on the topic of the article.

  57. Good argument; bad math.
    The issue should be the frequency of terrorist attacks perpetrated by members of specific communities.
    Given that Muslims are at best 2% of the population (but they count Christian Arabs in their number because they conflate Arab with Muslim and expect their Dhimmis to be act in favor of Muslim goals), making them about !% of the US population.
    Now figure the frequency of Muslim-perpetrated acts per capita (and then ask yourself if Muslim acts are condemned by Muslims or merely disavowed. To then add that ISIS and Al Qaeda use this to magnify their efficacy but discount it is the height of intellectual blindness.
    At this point, your deliberate refusal to address motivation which masks the actual frequency makes you a useful idiot.

  58. I think in your data

    “Your risk of being killed in a jihadist terror attack in the last 15 years amounted to roughly 1 in 2,640,000. Even if you stretch the period back to include 9/11, the risk would still just have been 1 in 110,000. Your lifetime risk of dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 161,000, and your chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 114.”

    The 1 in 114 chance of being killed in a motor vehicle crash accident is extremely high. I am curious about your source. If you look at NHTSA data from year 2013 in the US there were roughly 30000 fatalities. The US population estimated for 2013 was 315,091,138. From this data the risk in US of dying due to a motor vehicle accident is 1 in 10500.

  59. Who’s giving you money to speak positively of Islam? One of the Saudi princes? Look I’m speaking for every libertarian when I’m saying that the US conflicts in the Middle are fucking stupid, pointless and destructive, but Islam is inherently anti-liberty and anti-libertarian. It’s not really a religion in the traditional sense that Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism are, it’s a political system bent on domination of anything/everything just as was communism. Europe is on the brink of destruction because of Islam and it must be stopped before it’s too late.

  60. steps and also below are those steps you required to follow while Download vShare for iPhone you’ll obtain a marginal mistake after installation yet the.

  61. Muslims committed 11 out of 89 attacks. Muslims make up about 1% of the US population, so 11 of the attacks were committed by 1% of the population and 78 of the attacks were committed by 99% of the population. This supports the idea that Muslims, per capita, commit far more terrorist attacks than anyone else.

  62. For a website named reason.com, there’s very little logical process going on in this article. For starters, date range is completely arbitrary. It then cites a study using an arbitrary process based on media, instead of concrete information like the FBI UCR. For the same deceptive purposes, it decides social statistics with now be measured in aggregates, instead of proportions. Even according to the nonsense in the article, 12% of attacks are Muslim. Only 1% of the population is Muslim. In other words, they’re 1,200% more likely to commit an act of terror. Of course, there’s one final piece of the puzzle conveniently missing from this propaganda piece… the lethality of the 11 attacks compared to the other 78. Fix your arbitrary date range, study the UCR, and adjust per 100,000 population and, quite frankly, reason will follow.

    Fake news.

  63. this article was written in 2017 – yet it uses data from 2015.

    The spike in Islamic terrorist attacks has occurred in the last two years. It is actually more than 2.5 times more casualties than this article states and no.1 group (above far right terrorism)

  64. What are you talking about now
    ————————————————
    stay strong quotes
    gym quotes

  65. no muslims are not like that i know my friend who is muslim and developed Vshare Android App Store

  66. no muslims are not like that i know my friend who is muslim and developed Vshare Android App Store

  67. Excellent website, excellent post as well!
    I genuinely love how it is simple on my eyes and the data
    are well written.I’m wondering how I could be notified if a new post has been made.
    I’ve subscribed to your RSS which should do the trick!

    http://www.programshall.com/do…..-for-free/

    http://www.programshall.com/ph…..photoshop/

  68. Excellent website, excellent post as well!
    I genuinely love how it is simple on my eyes and the data
    are well written.I’m wondering how I could be notified if a new post has been made.
    I’ve subscribed to your RSS which should do the trick!

    http://forums.banatmasr.net/

    http://forums.banatmasr.net/f24/

  69. Now you can able to Download rrb allahabad admit card Online before exam.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.