The difference is since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have.
This is all based on a constructed viewpoint by twisting stats and argues the definition of terrorism.
The first cue to that is “since 9-11”. Well, that’s incredibly convenient to leave that day out, I guess because it severely damages the narrative that right-wingers are worse than the jihadists, therefore we should import more of them or something. :rolleyes:
The second is the article said “only 26” people were killed by Muslim terrorists. That’s half of the number of fatalities in the Orlando shootings.
Really, nobody buys this anymore.
The second article was written in 2015.
The difference it this: I fear white terrorists (since I’m married to an Indian) – and you never know when they might strike, but with Trump rhetoric out there, the world has become so much more dangerous from white terrorists. OTOH, I have virtually no fear of Islamic terrorists – the risk seems infinitesimally smaller than from white terrorists.
Well a lot of us don’t. Hopefully that number is growing as the credibility of certain news sites are questioned and examined.
No one not even the mighty Trump can assure no attacks. But his rhetoric seems of one spreading fear of Muslims. You and your spouse stay safe.
No more. The source link in the article you linked has been updated; the article has not been. Jidist deaths in the US since 9/11 killed over 3,000 in a jihadist attack now nukber 94; right- wing terrorists only account for 50.
And when you consider the relative proportions of the populations from which each draws, there’s quite a difference.
‘White Terror’ and ‘Muslim Terror’?
Islam is a religion, not a race.
Surely number of perps, rather than number of deaths, is a better metric?
Yes, leaving 9-11 out is ridiculous.
I don’t know who Duffy is, but this sounds like more liberal propaganda they want us to
I look at this way, of some white guy born in America or Canada or wherever, there’s not much you can do about that, but with Muslim terrorism you can do something, since you are bringing in many of these people from foreign countries. That’s the difference I see.
Homegrown crime is random but the crimes committed by imported foreigner, are crimes which could have been avoided.
If you lived in East St. Louis, you would greatly fear racist terror, and for good reason, but not by white perps. And the racist perps in that city are not Trump people by a long way.
Outlaws are outlaws, and no race is free of them.
The point is people from India (whether they be Catholic, as my husband is, or Hindu or Sikh or Muslim) look more like Muslims to many Americans than Middle Easterners do…so out of hate and fear whites attack and slaughter Indians…as the massacre of Sikhs in Wisconsin a few years ago and attacks on Indians in general spiking after 9/11.
We are fairly safe in the Rio Grande Valley, which is about 90% Latino, but our niece in Houston and nephew in upstate New York have reported since Trump was elected getting ugly looks and refusal to shake hands at Mass. It’s when we have to leave the Valley that we have to be on our guard. It is also the anti-immigrant talk and the thinly veiled racism of the Trump people.
We haven’t yet experienced violence, but in other places we lived have gotten garbage thrown on our lawns, broken glass in our driveway, refusal to shake hands at Mass, nasty looks and sneers, employment discrimination, refusal of service at restaurants, etc.
My husband does not want me to wear any of the beautiful tops I have from India in public, since that causes nasty looks.
So far so good, no violence yet. We just have to be cautious and careful.
“…thinly veiled…” “…no violence yet…” (after how many years, now?) “…ugly looks…”, “…refusal to shake hands at Mass…”
About a quarter to a third of the people in my parish won’t shake hands with anybody at Mass, because they don’t like the practice. More than half won’t hold hands during the “Our Father” and for the same reason. Sometimes “thinly veiled” = “imagined”.
Where I live there are Hispanics and some few people from the Indian subcontinent, mostly Nepalese. There are also some Hmong and others. One Hmong lady is a commercial lender at a local bank. Other than the occasional fight about women (usually initiated by Hispanic males who resent “white” men getting close to “their” women) there’s no violence among the “races”, and the relationships are good. There is one Chaldean Catholic in my parish, and he’s well regarded. And this area is otherwise about as “white” as “white” gets in the U.S, and went about 75% for Trump in the election.
I do understand that some people fear things that really aren’t a threat, but frankly, Lynnvinc, I think the fear you expressed is unfounded and the premise (Trump causes racist violence) is preposterous.
And if you don’t mind my saying so, Subcontinental Indians don’t look a thing like most Arabs or most Hispanics, either one.
This is a false comparison. White is a racial descriptor. Islam is an ideology.
says the white man
Thank you for providing us with a rather literal example of the genetic fallacy.
An amazingly racist thing to say.