RE: Truth vs. Reality: Terror Edition
hold on, is the idea that the number of attacks, is more important than the number of casualties?
The topic is the attention, based on the numbers of headlines.
This is not about "importance" based on casualities.
The study (that unfortunately you cannot look until it is published) did control for fatalities.
by counting things that were not attacks.
They use the internationally accepted definition.
The GTD defines a terrorist attack as the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by
a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion,
or intimidation.
The incident must entail some level of violence or immediate threat of violence
So yes, pointing a gun at someone and saying "I will kill you" and meaning that is a "real attack".
actually they say one of the reasons their tool lets you choose so many parameters is because no one really agrees on what constitutes a terror attack.
If we consider attacks where there were actual fatalities then it also makes no sense to claim that there is less coverage of white radical terrorist attacks, I challenge you to find a Jihadist or Radical Muslim attack that got as much press as the Charleston shooting during that period.
Right, to some people, but expecting that to get the same amount of press as 50 people being killed is foolish.
That would include almost any demonstration that AntiFa attends. And while AntiFa members are often white they aren't right wing.
By the above definition the attacker would need to state a political or religious goal as well.