[Desensitisation]

So, just a mentally unstable nut-job this time, whose therapy obviously wasn't enough.

[Oswald2001]

My first thought was that he looked like Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab the last surviving member of the moo slum mass murder terror pack of animals that pulled off the Mumbai Massacre.

In this case, a Porkistani 'hispanic'.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by Desensitisation ↗

So, just a mentally unstable nut-job this time, whose therapy obviously wasn't enough.

[RealityUnfolding]

Annnnnnnd, he's a Turkish Muslim. Color me shocked. But it's "probably not" terrorism.

(CNN)[Breaking news update, 12:57 a.m.]
The suspect in the Washington state mall shooting immigrated from Turkey, but is a legal permanent resident in the United States, authorities said.

[Breaking news update, 12:55 a.m.]
Washington state authorities said it's too early to rule out terrorism in the mall shooting because their investigation is still in the preliminary stages.

[Breaking news update, 12:54 a.m.]
The suspect in the Washington state mall shooting Friday night did not try to run when confronted by police Saturday, he just froze and complied, authorities said. His motive is still unknown.
[Previous story, published at 12:24 a.m.].
One day after a shooting left five people dead at a mall north of Seattle, authorities arrested a 20-year-old suspect after an overnight manhunt that left the city on edge.
Arcan Cetin is the lone suspect in the shooting that killed four women and a man Friday night at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington, according to state patrol Sgt. Mark Francis.

Every single one of these stories that comes out, some moron passes along the meme about "7 killed by terrorism", X killed by whiteys, and X blacks killed by police, then some random death like by shark or fridge falling on you (yes, I know, even the stat graph list is rather screwed up).

What those meme-whores don't seem to understand is that the government refuses to identify terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks.

This has been the new policy since Obama took office. Fort Hood, workplace violence. Navy Yard, workplace violence. Pulse, hate crime (but ignore the hate is due to Islamic extremism). Minnesota, no one died thanks to good guy with gun, also not labeled terrorist attack. NY bombing, no one died. Often, these attacks languish in "potential" terrorist attack without "official" designation. Especially right before elections. Much like Benghazi was a video...

What changed when Obama took office? The FBI policy czars he appointed now label that it's not worth investigating a terrorist threat by mere traveling to terrorist groups, by looking/reading/watching or supporting terrorism online (unless you mention your target is Obama, then even posting a meme with something along the lines of Obama could be the next target/victim gets a knock faster than a pizza delivery).

The Boston bombers, Pulse shooter, NY bomber, San Bernadino shooters and Minnesota knifer were ALL on the FBI's radar. They were ALL cleared.

In the Boston bombers case, Dzhokar didn't raise suspicion but Tamerlan had. Like, a lot.

In the Minnesota stabber, a few years ago he was "investigated" and "nothing substantial" found, despite the fact that part of their investigation, he was training in a Pakistan terrorist cell and POSTING THE VIDEOS PUBLICLY ONLINE. And they knew it, but no "proof" he was "actively planning" an attack.

What's more - despite repeated terrorist threats and acts in places like Minnesota with a heavy Muslim radical population or the cluster here in Florida in which several of these terrorists all have ties to one mosque, they insist these are all "lone wolf" so the stats on "organized terror"?

"Zero killed."

They are insisting the New York bomber is a "lone" wolf. Leftie sympathizer websites are not even calling it potential act of terror, they are calling them a lovely new phrase of "lone terrorist" - even in spite of the fact they have met with multiple suspected terrorists (who I'm sure have been cleared).

[CrunchyCripple]

Well, of course.
They need statistics to look a certain way.

That's why whenever people throw up statistics to prove their point about most things - I take it with a grain of salt.

You can make anything look any way you want to.

[el_topo]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

Well, of course.
They need statistics to look a certain way.

That's why whenever people throw up statistics to prove their point about most things - I take it with a grain of salt.

You can make anything look any way you want to.

Exactly statistics are really bullshit

[Steve]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

Well, of course.
They need statistics to look a certain way.

That's why whenever people throw up statistics to prove their point about most things - I take it with a grain of salt.

You can make anything look any way you want to.

Of course you can, the worst offenders being politicians.

[RealityUnfolding]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

Well, of course.
They need statistics to look a certain way.

That's why whenever people throw up statistics to prove their point about most things - I take it with a grain of salt.

You can make anything look any way you want to.

Yes and no. Stats based on pure emotion ("how evil was Hitler") or conjecture ("unarmed black man killing justified or not"), you can manipulate how you wish.

You can correlate two different stat sets to say what you want by excluding other (for better or worse) studies/stat sets.

You can identify root causes of a stat set by observation and bias.

What you can't do, is change the hard facts.

If I have a cup of water in a measuring cup, you can't say "that's not a cup of water, because it came from the faucet". You can say "it's wasteful to have that cup of water in there", you can say "that cup of water represents how much rain we've had since the drought due to fracking".

But you can't change that the source is a cup off water.

Just like a terrorist attack can't be "subjective", but the media and the FBI are doing so. When a man beheaded a coworker, it was for a religious reason and he was an extremist. It's "workplace violence" like Fort Hood is classified. You cannot change the data set that it IS terror, only that you can call it something else and insist everyone else call it something else.

It's like saying "no no, that cup of water is actually a cup of tea". Sure, some stupid people will believe you. Some people will insist the government must know better than them and thus it really must be a cup of tea. Others will go so far as to insist it's a cup of tea as long as it votes left/right. Yet some people still, have no idea what water is, so they just join the insistence movement that it's tea.

But it's still a cup of water.

You can't change the fact terrorism is increasing any more than you can change the fact that young, black men commit most of the crimes in the country.

You can argue how, or why, but it's happening. You can even argue that it's not a "real" stat because there are so many white crimes. But the real data set with equal numbers (white population ratio to white crime, versus black population ratio to black crime), is still true and cannot be manipulated.

[Steve]

An example of how politicians/governments can massage statistics, they can say unemployment is down by 500,000 this year....and people cheer thinking they are doing us proud. What they are not telling you is that 300,000 of those jobs are government schemes and the recipients are still claiming benefits. So unemployment has really dropped by 200,000....the foookin liars.

[lesslis2015]

Yep, or forget to add the other 500,000 that just said f-it, not even looking anymore.