What do you...

It sounds as well like there are many "terrorists", with a variety of skin colors and ethnicities, who, while characterized as terrorists, are not active in the field, so to speak.

Or something.

One wonders how all these nascent terrorists were discovered.

Or revealed.

Or sensed, deduced, or what-have-you.

Sounds a bit of a math exercise, completed in the lab.

Isn't the Guardian regarded as a bit gamey, Ian.

sorry i cut out about 1/3rd of the article as it was quite long. The longer version would have made it clear(er) that the article summarises a classified report created by MI5 based on case studies of several hundred people known to be or have been active either in conducting/attempting/supporting terrorist activity in the UK over the last 5-10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

sorry i cut out about 1/3rd of the article as it was quite long. The longer version would have made it clear(er) that the article summarises a classified report created by MI5 based on case studies of several hundred people known to be or have been active either in conducting/attempting/supporting terrorist activity in the UK over the last 5-10 years.

---

Then your stock in the report is based on the case studies of several hundred "terrorists", this lot of studies absolutely cross-sectional and accomodating all those who commit(ted) acts fitting the the general definition of "terrorism", and spanning 5-10 years.

What if I asked you to study this same subject, only limiting or narrowing your cohort demographic to immigrants (illegal or otherwise) who are of mideastern or south Asian origin and/or Islamic?

Do you see what I mean, and don't you dare cry racism or profiling. :whistling

can understand why for the purposes of this thread you'd want to just focus on Islamic, but why would you limit yourself to immigrants of mideastern / S.Asian origin?

That would exclude for example all of the 7/7 bombers and all of the terrorists* responsible for the attack at Glasgow airport (i.e. basically most of the terrorists who've actually done something in the last 5 years)


If you did just limit it to Islamic, then i think the conclusions of the report wouldn't have been significantly different, judging from the wording in the article it very much sounds like the MI5 report is focused on Islamic extremism, which would make sense as AFAIK its the major terrorist threat to the nation.



(*assuming India doesn't count as S. Asian, if it does then one of the terrorists falls into your category)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

can understand why for the purposes of this thread you'd want to just focus on Islamic, but why would you limit yourself to immigrants of mideastern / S.Asian origin?

That would exclude for example all of the 7/7 bombers and all of the terrorists* responsible for the attack at Glasgow airport (i.e. basically most of the terrorists who've actually done something in the last 5 years)


If you did just limit it to Islamic, then i think the conclusions of the report wouldn't have been significantly different, judging from the wording in the article it very much sounds like the MI5 report is focused on Islamic extremism, which would make sense as AFAIK its the major terrorist threat to the nation.



(*assuming India doesn't count as S. Asian, if it does then one of the terrorists falls into your category)

---

Well, I think I was focusing on the Islamic angle.