• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most mass shootings in the US aren't linked to Islamic terrorism

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
or to any other religious motivation.

The ones that are, however, tend to have more casualties.

imrs.php






Read more here
 
Was there some kind of theory that they were?
 
Was there some kind of theory that they were?

Given the attention that has been given to Islamic Terrorism and to the rants about how the current administration won't use the term, I'd say, yes there must be.
 
Given the attention that has been given to Islamic Terrorism and to the rants about how the current administration won't use the term, I'd say, yes there must be.

Maybe because it isn't just about the USA. The entire world is, and are going to be victims of their BS animalistic ideology for some time.
 
Given the attention that has been given to Islamic Terrorism and to the rants about how the current administration won't use the term, I'd say, yes there must be.

Well, considering that Muslims make up .6% of the population, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. When looking at those killed in terrorist attacks, Muslims are killing people at a rate thousands of % greater than their portion of the demographics.
 
Given the attention that has been given to Islamic Terrorism and to the rants about how the current administration won't use the term, I'd say, yes there must be.

Then you would be incorrect. :coffeepap:

The issue is the number of Islamic terrorist attacks of ALL kinds in our nation...starting with 9/11.

BIG LIST of Muslim terror attacks in U.S. since 9/11

Now, there is no disputing that there are many forms of "terrorism" practiced in the USA, from bombings of Abortion Clinics to setting fire to churches...we have a slue of home-grown terrorist groups.

But the point remains; various foreign Islamic groups have declare Jihad against the USA and other nations. Why is there a problem with working on this threat without detracting from other issues?
 
Last edited:
Whenever this topic comes up, people always remove two certain things that shift the numbers in interesting ways. Either, they start counting terrorist attacks after 9/11 or they only use guns. Perhaps we should look at all terrorist attacks equally. Dylann Roof was a racial terrorist and the Orlando terrorist was a religious terrorist.
 
Then you would be incorrect. :coffeepap:

The issue is the number of Islamic terrorist attacks of ALL kinds in our nation...starting with 9/11.

BIG LIST of Muslim terror attacks in U.S. since 9/11

Now, there is no disputing that there are many forms of "terrorism" practiced in the USA, from bombings of Abortion Clinics to setting fire to churches...we have a slue of home-grown terrorist groups.

But the point remains; various foreign Islamic groups have declare Jihad against the USA and other nations. Why is there a problem with working on this threat without detracting from other issues?

And added to the fact that there are so many terrorist attacks happening worldwide, and many of them are clearly motivated by Radical Islam.
 
Then you would be incorrect. :coffeepap:

The issue is the number of Islamic terrorist attacks of ALL kinds in our nation...starting with 9/11.

BIG LIST of Muslim terror attacks in U.S. since 9/11

Now, there is no disputing that there are many forms of "terrorism" practiced in the USA, from bombings of Abortion Clinics to setting fire to churches...we have a slue of home-grown terrorist groups.

But the point remains; various foreign Islamic groups have declare Jihad against the USA and other nations. Why is there a problem with working on this threat without detracting from other issues?

OK, then, if we count all terrorist attacks of all sorts, then is Islamic Jihad the only issue?
Or is it enough of an issue to trade freedoms in a so called "war on terror"?
Is the Obama administration not playing along because it doesn't immediately call any attack Islamic terrorism?

Just wondering.
 
OK, then, if we count all terrorist attacks of all sorts, then is Islamic Jihad the only issue?
Or is it enough of an issue to trade freedoms in a so called "war on terror"?
Is the Obama administration not playing along because it doesn't immediately call any attack Islamic terrorism?

Just wondering.

Come on.

Muslim terrorism has never been the only issue. The difference is that it is an external threat, a foreign threat.

You deal with internal threats with the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

When dealing with external threats infiltrating from there to here? You add Federal intelligence agencies as well.
 
Last edited:
And nothing.

This map does nothing to change the fact that terrorist attacks motivated by Radical Islam is a problem, not just for the US, but for the world as a whole.

True enough. I just didn't get what the OP's point of this thread may have been.
 
Come on.

Muslim terrorism has never been the only issue. The difference is that it is an external threat, a foreign threat.

You deal with internal threats with the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

When dealing with external threats infiltrating from there to here? You add Federal intelligence agencies as well.

Right.

And, then you declare a "war on terror"?
 
And nothing.

This map does nothing to change the fact that terrorist attacks motivated by Radical Islam is a problem, not just for the US, but for the world as a whole.

...assuming that events such as SB and Pulse and several others were not staged events with play actors.
 
...assuming that events such as SB and Pulse and several others were not staged events with play actors.

No, they were not staged and they weren't play actors.

Why is every event that has ever happened a conspiracy to you guys?
 
No, they were not staged and they weren't play actors.

Why is every event that has ever happened a conspiracy to you guys?

Some of us, and I guess it includes me, look more closely at what the media has provided.

I'm guessing you do not.

If one takes the time, yes, it does take time to watch all those actors tell their stories, it becomes very clear that no 2 stories are the same, and many are impossible and outlandish.

One guy claimed to have had to crawl out on his belly with blood and bodies everywhere, yet he has not a spot of blood on his partially white shirt. He is also the same guy caught on video helping carry a leg wounded man, and they are carrying him towards the Pulse, not away from it.

Another young man told a story to the credulous cameras that he saw the bullet in one man's leg wound and described it as being as big as his little finger. Such bull****!

You, madam, have probably not taken the time to examine the evidence presented, but some of us have. Play actors, just like Sandy Hook.
 
Back
Top Bottom