> And your point is...what exactly? Okay, Muslims account for 30% of attacks in that 8 year period.
The point is that a muslim is FAR more likely to be a terrorist than a right winger (it's not even close btw), refuting the Islam apologist narrative you're trying to promote by using misleading statistics about terrorism.
> How many of those were committed by migrants or people with citizenship? Equate in that fact and, well, gg your narrative
How is it at all relevant what their immigration status is? Muslim is a muslim regardless if he/she is a citizen or in the country illegally.
I know you're desperate to shift the topic into immigration as your narrative has been completely debunked and you can't refute the the arguments presented.
My narrative is that muslims as an ethnic group cause a disproportionate amount of terror in the US, and therefor people that are worried about Islamic terror aren't inherently motivated by racism, xenophobia or anything of the sort BUT the actual reality which is that muslims have an incredibly high terror rate per capita.
The legal status of muslims is completely irrelevant in this context.
> And that is still only 30%,
And I already explained the reason why it's "only" 30%.
Muslims are around 1% of the US population but commit around 30% of terrorism.
If you don't understand simple math, to put it mildly, there is a massive problem with terrorism coming from the muslim community.
> so I'll leave you to fill in the blanks on what that 70%
Had you taken a look at my source, you would have seen that the rest is right wing terror and left wing terror, majority being right wing terrorism.
I have no problem acknowledging facts and I do acknowledge that right wing terror has been on the rise lately in the US. I actually care about the facts and don't deny them, as my only loyalty is to the truth.
You do seem to have a problem with acknowledging the problem of radicalization in the muslim community though.
> plenty of people do seriously argue that all Muslims are terrorists
The fact that you even believe that there are "plenty" of people that ACTUALLY think literally every single muslim is a terrorist means you're incredibly brainwashed.
Here's a *NEWSFLASH*- Someone writing something edgy in order to trigger a response doesn't mean the person actually holds that belief.
> See the thing about statistics is they can be manipulated.
Ah so you were fine with citing statistics originally to make the claim about all terror incidents being right wing in 2018, but now that statistics are being used against you, now you're trying to claim the statistics are bogus and shouldn't be trusted.
> You claim a Muslim in the US is far more likely to be a terrorist
Yes, backed up by statistical data. Also a right winger is more likely to be a terrorist than a left winger according to those statistics.
> You can easily class a mass shooting as terrorism.
Factually incorrect. Whether something is officially declared terrorism has to do with the motive of the perpetrator. US government description of terrorism:
Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
Whether something is declared terrorism isn't just random, which you seem to suggest.
> Of the 74 terror attacks and plots between 2000-2018, 37 were committed by Muslims,
What is your source for this information and does this include foiled plots?
Not that I'm necessarily disputing the statistics, but the source I linked has completely different data.
> Okay, seems scary, right?
I don't make judgement based on emotion.
> Puts statistical probabilty of being attacked by a Muslim at 0.001%
Who disputes that? I never said or implied that you're very likely to ever be killed by a muslim terrorist. You're creating a complete strawman.
> So let's factor in mass shootings, which like I said can be classed as terrorism.
That is factually inaccurate, as I already explained. It's very obvious that you lack understanding when it comes to this topic.
> Only 6 of which were committed by Muslims.
1. Why are you narrowing it down to shootings only?
Shooting isn't the only way to cause terrorism.
2. Even with these cherry picked numbers, muslims are over represented in mass shootings.
It's very telling that even after cherry picking a data point, you still end up reinforcing my argument, which is that muslims cause terror at disproportionate rates.
> You see now why numbers can be misleading?
I'm very well aware why numbers can be misleading, but the numbers I've presented aren't misleading in any way and I refute every single argument you put forward here.
Now try to do the same. You won't be able to.