In fairness, I think the report's title and associated announcement are confusing, so it's not unreasonable you made this mistake. But you should correct it.
-
-
Replying to @Aquabased @PoliticalShort
Some is, but not most. More domestic terrorist attacks by far-right extremists than jihadist sympathizers. And, even if it were, the report specifies "foreign-born." People born in the United States to parents who were born elsewhere are native-born, not foreign-born.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aquabased @PoliticalShort
Not a phantom or any sort of bogeyman. Just the facts. Your opinion is up to you. Whether we agree or not, I respect your right to have it. But the facts are not up to either of us. They're facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aquabased @PoliticalShort
In US since 9/11 -62 terrorist attacks by far-right extremists, causing 106 deaths (ex. Charleston Church) -23 attacks by jihadists, causing 119 (ex. San Bernardino) Overall, jihadist threat larger (for this and other reasons). No need to be inaccurate with the stats.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aquabased @PoliticalShort
I didn't harp on anything. I noted the presentation of the stats was inaccurate and then responded to questions you asked. If you hadn't asked, I wouldn't have discussed it further. On why it makes sense to measure starting after 9/11, I wrote an article:http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454643/nyc-subway-bombing-puts-terror-perspective …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. They wanted the final version to be shorter and that part got cut The reason it's common to start after 9/11 is US implemented many new security measures. To evaluate threats to US security today, it makes sense to look at the time with those measures
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.