Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[pietillidie]

[pietillidie]

Can we at least get acknowledgement of the facts that Skids is posting up?

The fact is that on a daily basis, more atrocities are committed in the name of Islam than for all the other religions combined. That surely raises a significant query about those who purport to be Islamic religious leaders.

But, unlike the claim in your post which may or may not be true, you need to cite reliable, verifiable sources to do this properly; you can't just quote third-hand stuff. It's not that there is a shortage of extremist killings, but there's no point listing things if your list has no proper sources.

And, just to pull this over page, without verifiable sources, what's the point?

[Wokko]

I googled a couple of them and they all seem to check out. I found this page

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Sources.htm

on a site that aggregates these acts, so if you really want individual sources and it's not just an attempt to discredit then that's a good place to start.

[pietillidie]

I googled a couple of them and they all seem to check out. I found this page

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Sources.htm

on a site that aggregates these acts, so if you really want individual sources and it's not just an attempt to discredit then that's a good place to start.

That's not good enough for a public list of deaths, though. If you are going to list stuff, it has to be factual; that's the point of lists. They might be factual, but how do we know? Reputable, professional sources are a minimum.

[Morrigu]

[pietillidie]

[^As edited in my OP, the US military has disavowed it.]

Are you making a theological argument that Allah is not God?

I am obviously trying to clarify the ethics of the thread. Certainly, professional sources are a minimum so we can know who has done what in whose name.

[Morrigu]

Pfffttt I make no distinction if people want to believe in some imaginary being then good for them - I am not a believer - if other folk do good for them.

The thread splitter titled this thread "bad things done by Muslims" - so relevance of your posts about the clergy, the USA Military and God is what exactly?????

[pietillidie]

^ Which has been named by the thread splitter as " bad things done by Muslims" - so relevance of your posts about the clergy, the USA Military and God is what exactly?????

Clarifying the ethics of reporting these things. Just because witnesses aren't here to clarify the facts, doesn't mean the facts of who, what, when, where and on what basis should go unscrutinised.

To give you a very pertinent example, what if the extremists concerned are Coalition allies? Should they be cited as "extremist Muslim and Christian killings"? There are several extremist groups which are US/Anglo/Coalition allies.

BTW, what would you name a thread listing such things?

[Morrigu]

^ by all means seek to clarify the facts of the reporting of " bad things done by Muslims"

Seems reasonable

But sprouting " bad things done by clergy etc" as some counter argument in this thread is off topic and yet strangely tolerated unlike many others.

[Wokko]

I googled a couple of them and they all seem to check out. I found this page

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Sources.htm

on a site that aggregates these acts, so if you really want individual sources and it's not just an attempt to discredit then that's a good place to start.

That's not good enough for a public list of deaths, though. If you are going to list stuff, it has to be factual; that's the point of lists. They might be factual, but how do we know? Reputable, professional sources are a minimum.

So I guess the answer is "No" you don't actually want the sources, you're just wanting to dilute, discredit and derail the topic. The sources are all easily and readily available by googling the detail of each action. If that's too much then as stated on the page I linked you can email the aggregator of the list who will provide individual sources. When audited by a mainstream news source they were found to under report.

[pietillidie]

^ by all means seek to clarify the facts of the reporting of " bad things done by Muslims"

Seems reasonable

But sprouting " bad things done by clergy etc" as some counter argument in this thread is off topic and yet strangely tolerated unlike many others.

It's not a counter-argument. It's an ethical concern about this list. Comparison is a very good way to tease out ethics. Why one list and not another? Why 100 pages on one topic and not another? Why no care with factual verification in some cases? Why no clear sectarian delineation in some cases, but clear sectarian delineation in others?

These things all speak to ethics and values.

[pietillidie]

I googled a couple of them and they all seem to check out. I found this page

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Sources.htm

on a site that aggregates these acts, so if you really want individual sources and it's not just an attempt to discredit then that's a good place to start.

That's not good enough for a public list of deaths, though. If you are going to list stuff, it has to be factual; that's the point of lists. They might be factual, but how do we know? Reputable, professional sources are a minimum.

So I guess the answer is "No" you don't actually want the sources, you're just wanting to dilute, discredit and derail the topic. The sources are all easily and readily available by googling the detail of each action. If that's too much then as stated on the page I linked you can email the aggregator of the list who will provide individual sources. When audited by a mainstream news source they were found to under report.

Nope, not good enough. You list deaths and murders in a formal list, you provide professional sources.

[HAL]

^ by all means seek to clarify the facts of the reporting of " bad things done by Muslims"

Seems reasonable

But sprouting " bad things done by clergy etc" as some counter argument in this thread is off topic and yet strangely tolerated unlike many others.

It's not a counter-argument. It's an ethical concern about this list. Comparison is a very good way to tease out ethics. Why one list and not another? Why 100 pages on one topic and not another? Why no care with factual verification in some cases? Why no clear sectarian delineation in some cases, but clear sectarian delineation in others?

These things all speak to ethics and values.

Why did the cross the road?

[David]

The main problem with this tracker is not with its accuracy, which I'm guessing checks out. What it shows is how a selective presentation of facts can be used to create a skewed perception of reality.

The fact is, you could theoretically make a list of any kind: violent acts committed by Christians; or Africans; or Australians (or any group that could potentially have a negative stereotype attached and subsequently 'confirmed'). How few or how many is totally relative. And when you think about it that way, you see how creepy and anti-intellectual this exercise (and its gleeful reposting on this board) is.

What this data shows is quantity, not proportion. And that taps into a common fallacy that is already really widespread on this topic: that every single time one hears about a violent Muslim act, it confirms that violence is an inherent component of Islam. This is despite the fact that a terrorist attack in Nigeria, cultural conflict in Myanmar or drive-by shooting in Bosnia may have nothing in common with each other apart from the general religion of the perpetrators. Despite the fact that most Muslims in these places don't have anything to do with crimes like these. Despite the fact that many of the victims are themselves Muslim.

Skids' list doesn't have a thing to say about the majority of peaceful, mainstream Muslims living mundane, ordinary lives. And that allows this website, with its sarcastic name, to prosecute its sole agenda: to convince people that the entire religion of Islam is violent, dangerous and incompatible with Western values. That's not in any way a new or challenging idea; it's been around at least since the September 11 attacks, and as long as people keep confusing quantity with proportion, it's not going anywhere.

[pietillidie]

^And that selectiveness has issues all the way down. Not only do you have the problem of Coalition ally extremists killing people, such as Coalition ally Saudi Arabia killing Yemeni Houthi rebels, you've also got the problem of, say, Iran-funded Hezbollah fighting al Qaeda allies al Nusra Front who are in turn now fighting ISIS after trying to merge with them not long ago.

So, if there is a clash between these groups, how is this recorded in the list so people get a grip on the facts of the matter? And why does the list record some deaths and not others, even in this narrow sense? On what basis is the list selected? Copy-and-paste ease, or something more sober?