Fort Lauderdale shooting

[Jpeters]

If you make assumptions and leap to conclusions then you're just demonstrating prejudice.

 

No, if I look at history, see that the criminal is statistically far more likely to share a characteristic, I am using logic to make a prediction.

[melthebell]

No, if I look at history, see that the criminal is statistically far more likely to share a characteristic, I am using logic to make a prediction.

why do you need to do it? are you a police officer in florida?

and they already have the suspect in custody, have done since it happened, its only a matter of time until they give a reason

[Gamston]

It'd be logical to think 'Muslim' in some countries, but if you're aware of regular activities and events in the US, it'd be much more logical to think 'domestic'.

It'd be illogical to jump to a conclusion in any situation though.

We are all aware of regular activities in America. This incident happened at an airport, which makes it more logical to think of terrorism, given recent terrorist attacks at airports.

[Robin-H]

If you fail to earn from the past you are condemned to repeat it.

 

It is normal to look to similar events in the past for an insight into what has happened. I am confident that people had to guess the belief system (or motivation) of the attacker, most people would have said Islam.

 

This is because, at the present time in history, Muslims are disproportionately killing more people through terror. Had this been in 1980s Britain, most would have assumed it was the IRA.

 

Although I understand what you are trying to say, that logic really doesn't make any sense if you think about it.

 

Whether or not muslims are disproportionately killing more people through terror attacks (and let's include mass shootings, as I think those are interchangeable) or not doesn't alter the fact that it is less likely to be a muslim than non a muslim executing such an event.

 

Let's take some figures - not accurate to make the maths easier, but they don't need to be for this point - (and the 10% figure for Muslim caused terrorism deaths in America is roughly accurate.)

 

Let's say 1000 people have been killed over 10 years by acts of terror in the USA. 100 of the those people were killed by muslims (so 10%), however muslims make up 1% of the population, so they are killing a disproportional number for their demographic, but that doesn't alter the fact they caused only 10%, whatever their population is.

 

That leaves 900 deaths over the 10 years due to acts executed by non-muslims.

 

When an 'act of terror' happens then, going by past experience, there would be a 90% chance that it wasn't committed by a muslim, and only a 10% chance that it was - it doesn't matter at all whether or not muslims are committing a disproportionate number for their population or not.

 

Assuming that every such act is perpetuated by Muslims is therefore rather silly.

[Cyclone]

No, if I look at history, see that the criminal is statistically far more likely to share a characteristic, I am using logic to make a prediction.

 

Except in this case you didn't look did you. Or if you did there's something wrong with your logic. In the case of the US mass shootings are not statistically more likely to be committed by Muslims are they.

 

So I submit that what you actually did was make an assumption instead of looking, and then jump to a conclusion that fitted with your prejudices. Then when challenged you've tried to justify it as being logical and math based, despite the fact that it was neither.

[Jpeters]

why do you need to do it? are you a police officer in florida?

and they already have the suspect in custody, have done since it happened, its only a matter of time until they give a reason

 

I don't need to do it. Any more than you needed to respond to this thread, or any more than I need to eat the egg sandwich I am about to make.

 

This is a discussion forum and I wanted to discuss the occurrences in Florida. The immediate thought for a lot of people would have been "it's the Muslims again". You surely can't deny this. I brought it up to discuss.

 

Although I understand what you are trying to say, that logic really doesn't make any sense if you think about it.

 

Whether or not muslims are disproportionately killing more people through terror attacks (and let's include mass shootings, as I think those are interchangeable) or not doesn't alter the fact that it is less likely to be a muslim than non a muslim executing such an event.

 

Let's take some figures - not accurate to make the maths easier, but they don't need to be for this point - (and the 10% figure for Muslim caused terrorism deaths in America is roughly accurate.)

 

Let's say 1000 people have been killed over 10 years by acts of terror in the USA. 100 of the those people were killed by muslims (so 10%), however muslims make up 1% of the population, so they are killing a disproportional number for their demographic, but that doesn't alter the fact they caused only 10%, whatever their population is.

 

That leaves 900 deaths over the 10 years due to acts executed by non-muslims.

 

When an 'act of terror' happens then, going by past experience, there would be a 90% chance that it wasn't committed by a muslim, and only a 10% chance that it was - it doesn't matter at all whether or not muslims are committing a disproportionate number for their population or not.

 

Assuming that every such act is perpetuated by Muslims is therefore rather silly.

 

 

The only counter argument that has made any sense thus far. You make an excellent point, however, I fear you have only taken part of my point. You must, I feel, consider the location of the event.

 

Had this happened in a high school, I wouldn't have even considered the possibility of it being a Muslim. However, it happened at am airport and targeted tourists, these are the hall marks (currently) of Muslim terror actions.

[melthebell]

 

Had this happened in a high school, I wouldn't have even considered the possibility of it being a Muslim. However, it happened at am airport and targeted tourists, these are the hall marks (currently) of Muslim terror actions.

 

there you go again, wrongly assuming, mass shootings happen all over the US, yes in schools but also in colleges, stores, airports, even peoples homes and workplaces.

If somebodys breaks fail to work in say manchester and a car ploughs into a crowd of people outside a nightclub will you wrongly assume it was islamic? since theres been a recent outbreak of those types?

[Jpeters]

there you go again, wrongly assuming, mass shootings happen all over the US, yes in schools but also in colleges, stores, airports, even peoples homes and workplaces.

If somebodys breaks fail to work in say manchester and a car ploughs into a crowd of people outside a nightclub will you wrongly assume it was islamic? since theres been a recent outbreak of those types?

 

I didn't assume anything, read what I have written again. I think you owe me an apology Mr angry pants.

 

I asked whether it was Islamic terrorism, this is a question mostrich people would have asked themselves. No amount of virtue signalling from you will change that.

[Robin-H]

I didn't assume anything, read what I have written again. I think you owe me an apology Mr angry pants.

 

I asked whether it was Islamic terrorism, this is a question mostrich people would have asked themselves. No amount of virtue signalling from you will change that.

 

Your originally post was a question yes, but to be fair after that you did say you were using logic to 'make a prediction'. That sounds more than just 'asking' to me..

 

You also said 'if it was 1980's Britain, people would have assumed it was the IRA' (bold mine). That sounds to me like the justification of why you assumed it was Islamic terrorism in this case.

[Jpeters]

Good point as ever Mr H.

 

The BBC are reporting that the gentleman has been watching Jihadist videos.

 

The plot thickens.