[–] 10735545? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
He also ignored incidents like the Boston Bombing, which would have had a much higher number of casualties (in terms of injuries) than almost any other attack in recent history, simply due to the fact that big bomb blasts in the middle of crowded areas tend to send out waves of random shrapnel and cause the crowds to panic and trample over each other, unlike the close-range shootings, where the attackers would have had a better chance of focusing on killing targets rather than randomly shooting at them and letting them escape wounded.
[–] eagleshigh 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
The Tsarnaevs didn't do the bombing. Check out the Craft agents who had the same exact bag that exploded, which was different than the one that the younger brother had.
God you goyim are so gullible.
[–] 10736940? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It isn't about "what was actually terrorism", it was "what the public believes was terrorism".
If we can point out the flaws in their numbers using their own false flags, great. If we can make them admit on their own that the false flags weren't actually terrorist plots, even better.
Either way, showing off the errors in their claims makes us win.
[–] lemon11 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
But this is really about that guy's assumptions and his audience's prejudices, not the truth. If we work off the official numbers, official declarations of what events are "terrorism" and who is or isn't muslim, then his revision of "killed" to "casualty" might be close to correct (within 100 casualties, on first glance).
However, I don't accept those official proclamations. And what's more, it doesn't matter what we accept, because his implied point is the same thing every Bill Maher, Al Franken, and Barry "Bitter Clingers" Soetero say every chance they get: that right-wing Christians are a greater threat to life than anyone, much less muslims. And they successfully use it to write unConstitutional law, prosecute the innocent, and more.