Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[Skids]

You're at least half-right on this, Skids: the mainstream media do indeed heavily underreport terror attacks in distant countries, to the extent that the vast majority of Western people are oblivious to them having occurred. But if you're thinking it's some kind of conspiracy to protect Islam's reputation, you couldn't be more wrong. The reason they're underreported is partially because they're much more commonplace, but mostly for the same reason we hear so little about casualties of America air strikes, or, really, just about anything that happens in non-Anglo-European countries at all: that kind of news doesn't sell.

Why that is so is an interesting question, and one I tried to address, for instance, in this thread here:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1642259

I just wish that the people who run your terrorism tracker showed anywhere near as much concern for Middle-Eastern, African and South Asian lives when political mileage can't be made from them.

MY terrorism tracker ... nice. If you visited the site, you'd se they DO show concern for attacks, not only in the regions you highlighted, but every region, in every corner of the globe where this vile cult preaches their venom.

And maybe you should quote your source for your relevant information on why they do that.... wouldn't that be plagiarism if you didn't?

[watt price tully]

You could think that. But unless you specifically name the city and country with 'attack', a simple search won't bring it up.

If you type in "Latest terrorist attack", you will get a few pages of the UK attack and then all sorts of other, what must be.... stuff that we need to know,.... I guess

Since the Manchester attack, on the 22nd, there have been 18 Islamic terrorist attacks, in 10 different countries, that have resulted in; 185 dead & a further 134 injured...

How many had you heard of before you saw this thread again?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

Lets correct a few mistakes & errors

1. Two of the three you mentioned to luvdids were in fact in mainstream media so let's put that piece of bullshit to bed. In fact I drew attention to it by adding it to the Islamic terror thread (your thread) where this should be, with the relevant attribution (I posted a link to mainstream media source).

2. You yourself have quoted the Guardian - again mainstream news for the last of the three. No one's hiding anything & of course in western news, western news will dominate.

3. Luvdid's point remains - the fact that you easily sourced it means that it is not hidden anywhere.

However, your point that Islamic fundamentalists (not the vast majority of Muslims) are murdering others is a good one to make but it is more convincing when taken with wider issues going on such as what is going on Yemen etc.

You can call bullshit all you like WPT, but, did you try the google search criteria I quoted & how many of the attacks, since Manchester, had you heard of, or seen on the news? Honestly, answer the highlighted bit of the quote..... the 18 attacks in 10 other countries that killed or injured another 319 people..... it's been a week after all.

Skids, Skids, Skids....

Now stop being a dill.

You quoted 4 sources that you put in bold about 4 (awful) episodes of terror. They were all mainstream media reported. You quoted the mainstream media yourself disproving your claim that they don't go reported that Luvdid's quite correctly pointed out and one of which (the coptic church bus goers murder I put in this thread).

I also stated (take note here) that western media reports (wait for it) western media related stuff. This might come as a big suprise to you but for most of us our media (I'm talking TV, radio with some online ) deal with US & UK media generally as well as AFP (France) and Reuters, AP, etc.

Accordingly, terror murders in countries like Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, etc often won't make it.

Further, the media I listen to, watch & read includes (that relate to terrorism):

1. News limited (please forgive me)
2. Fairfax
3. Al Jazeera
4. BBC
5. The Guardian
6. ABC - especially Radio National, News radio & 774
7. Haaretz, Times of Israel & Ynet news (Israeli media)
8. The Daily Star (Lebanon)
9. The Daily Hurriet (Turkey)
10. NYT
11. Daily Telegraph UK
12. The Independent UK

The good thing about having a variety of news sources is not only the provision of basic information as in statistics but putting meaning behind the stats that is, context & explanation.

Have a read of some of them as they are interesting and informative.

Seems that goanna you had was undercooked

BTW, I've shown you mine, show me yours...

Please pause & think before you reply.

[stui magpie]

You're at least half-right on this, Skids: the mainstream media do indeed heavily underreport terror attacks in distant countries, to the extent that the vast majority of Western people are oblivious to them having occurred. But if you're thinking it's some kind of conspiracy to protect Islam's reputation, you couldn't be more wrong. The reason they're underreported is partially because they're much more commonplace, but mostly for the same reason we hear so little about casualties of America air strikes, or, really, just about anything that happens in non-Anglo-European countries at all: that kind of news doesn't sell.

Why that is so is an interesting question, and one I tried to address, for instance, in this thread here:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1642259

I just wish that the people who run your terrorism tracker showed anywhere near as much concern for Middle-Eastern, African and South Asian lives when political mileage can't be made from them.

Bingo.

News sources report stuff for one of 2 reasons. Either to drive ratings or drive an agenda. Both lead to dollars.

issues overseas in non western countries don't usually meet either criteria, unless you can throw in a shock factor

[HAL]

Interesting explanation.

[Skids]

You sure you're not a politician WPT?

You still didn't answer the question (sure, you quoted your news sources, Bravo)
But, had you, heard of the other attacks, in the last week, that resulted in hundreds of fatalities?

I know my initial observation was merged into 'my' terrorist thread, but my statement still stands .... 'hardly rates a mention'.

Do i have to quote me now David?

[Skids]

[watt price tully]

[Mugwump]

^ we're all entitled to opinions, MM. But if you cannot see the difference between the statement that "civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but we should do all that is humanly possible to avoid them" (you called this murder, I note) and machine-gunning a bus full of civilians including children because of religious hatred, then I must question the validity of your opinions in this area.

Somewhat.... clouded perhaps

Trying to be polite, that's all.

[Pies4shaw]

Our bombs don't kill their children as thoroughly as theirs kill ours, MM. Surely you can see that? It's not rocket (launcher) science.

[Mugwump]

^ the careful balancing of dilemmas, responsibilities and interests in the above post deserves, no doubt, much study.

[HAL]

Are you a student?

[watt price tully]

You sure you're not a politician WPT?

......?

"Skids, indeed men and women of Australia, having said that let me say this.....I did not have sexual relations while I didn't inhale....."

[David]

You're at least half-right on this, Skids: the mainstream media do indeed heavily underreport terror attacks in distant countries, to the extent that the vast majority of Western people are oblivious to them having occurred. But if you're thinking it's some kind of conspiracy to protect Islam's reputation, you couldn't be more wrong. The reason they're underreported is partially because they're much more commonplace, but mostly for the same reason we hear so little about casualties of America air strikes, or, really, just about anything that happens in non-Anglo-European countries at all: that kind of news doesn't sell.

Why that is so is an interesting question, and one I tried to address, for instance, in this thread here:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1642259

I just wish that the people who run your terrorism tracker showed anywhere near as much concern for Middle-Eastern, African and South Asian lives when political mileage can't be made from them.

MY terrorism tracker ... nice. If you visited the site, you'd se they DO show concern for attacks, not only in the regions you highlighted, but every region, in every corner of the globe where this vile cult preaches their venom.

Oh, they're quite interested in body counts, I agree. But when it comes to issues such as foreign aid, or economic development, or letting these same people into the country as refugees, the silence is deafening.

The biggest cognitive dissonance is around the fact that most of the victims you list are Muslim themselves. Yet, you tell us that their religion is evil and that they're likely to harbour terrorist sympathies (particularly if they try to enter the country), despite the fact that they have more reason to hate terrorists than you ever will.

[Pies4shaw]

[Mountains Magpie]

^ we're all entitled to opinions, MM. But if you cannot see the difference between the statement that "civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but we should do all that is humanly possible to avoid them" (you called this murder, I note) and machine-gunning a bus full of civilians including children because of religious hatred, then I must question the validity of your opinions in this area.

I called it murder (and in this context I am referring to the USA's involvement in Iraq and Syria) because it's my opinion the Americans are in both nations illegally.

The machine gunning of civilians on a bus, again in my opinion, is not religious hatred. It's just hatred. These people are not muslims.

Props to P4S and WPT for their mirth. And thank you Mugwump for being polite, although I don't know what Skids means by clouded.

MM