Hmm. If only there was a common thread that tied all these terrorist groups together. We all know Islam is the religion of peace, so it can’t be that.
You will find more statistics at Statista
One common feature of a functioning nation state is a social contract that delegates all legal use of force to the government of that particular state. This is called the monopoly on violence and implies that only the state and its institutions can claim to rightfully use physical force.
Needless to say that there are many instances in which this monopoly is called into question by sub-state actors. Such groups are given varying titles. In the case of the Islamic State for example, most observers simply refer to it as a terrorist organisation. There are other groups, that employ violent means for political ends whose labelling is more contentious, for example because they oppose an illigitimate or authoritarian state.
Calling a group terrorist therefore depends on which side the person labelling the organisation stems from. This is why many scholars avoid the term terrorism alltogehter, even though its use has become inflationary ever since the 9/11 attacks and the start of the so-called war on terror 15 years ago.
Based on research by the IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre the below chart gives an idea of which groups are the deadliest.
They listed only non-state actors so they wouldn’t have to place the US at the top of the list. Where is the chart that just shows the attacks for the year by all groups. Remember when Obama called ISIS the JV team? That’s because he knows we commit more attacks than they do.
And it was Obama’s side that attacked Deir el-Zour Saturday with 2 F-16s and 2 A-10s which killed 62 Syrian soldiers so ISIS could launch an attack.; Obama broke the peace treaty with Russia and Syria and restarted the fighting. And who supplied ISIS and has backed them from the start while pretending to oppose them…Please vote Trump.
Well, I’m feeling much better since Josh Earnest assured us that our war with ISIS is simply a war of narratives. Relax, breathe easily, just a war of words….nothing more…
It is all BS. Lies upon lies and deception within deception.
Get out of cities, if you can, and have some fun. Maslow’s
hierarchy can work for you. The self actualization part will be
survival. Should foreign troops show up at your door to drag you
to the FEMAS? You can use one of your bullets to gain an honorable
end.
“We all know Islam is the religion of peace, so it can’t be that.”
You presented that as sarcasm I know but there are many that are so dedicated to being PC that they really believe or are committed to believing the lie that “Islam is the religion of peace”. That is one of the biggest lies ever told. As long as a person believes that lie they will never see the common threat that ties all these terrorist groups together.
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror (did you get that-TERROR) into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror (did you get that-TERROR) into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
That’s only a few examples where terror is advocated in the quran.
Did you not wonder why the terrorist go around cutting people’s heads off? – IT’S IN THE QURAN!! –THAT IS ISLAM!!!!
Now do you still not get the connection????
Religion of piece MY ASS!!!
Speaking in reference to the recent NY/NJ bombings, libtard Richard Fowler claimed on Fox News this past Sunday that “The problem is, when you say the word ‘terrorism’, because of word association, it automatically assumes you are talking about people of the Muslim faith.” Claiming that the word ‘terrorism’ is “too strong of a word for our Muslim friends,” he said that the word should be replaced with the words ‘intentional acts’ – thereby proving, once again, that liberalism is a mental disorder.
“One common feature of a functioning nation state is a social contract that delegates all legal use of force to the government of that particular state. This is called the monopoly on violence and implies that only the state and its institutions can claim to rightfully use physical force.”
How about no? The state is only one of infinite entities that have a legitimate use of force. A parent can spank a child’s hand to restrain it from playing with the electrical outlet, and had better do so if the two year old is to survive infancy. A man can shoot a rabid dog before it bites his child. A woman can fight off a rapist.
Your postulate is a lie; it is told by the state to justify coercion on individuals. The Second Amendment is a real recognition that goverments decay into tyrannies, and must be opposed to protect freedom, a higher virtue. Imagine that the first IRS agent was executed by an outraged taxpayer; would there be the nightmare of unaccountable taxation we have now? Imagine that the first kidnapper from Child and Protective Services was met with a shotgun; would the out-of-control theft of children from responsible parents be a problem now?
Lies told by the state to free, responsible individuals foolish enough to believe them: there is no “social contract”, it’s a lie told to control you by people who want to own you. Wake up!
James,
that was great!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/jordan-writer-in-anti-islam-case-shot-dead-at-court/ar-BBwB4w3?li=BBnb7Kz