2018 update. The U.S. appears on the list mostly because of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. Since the most recent year is weighted most heavily, the U.S. will likely fall off the list next year.
Kind of a late response, but I don't think the Las Vegas shooting in 2017 was a terrorist act, right? We never learned the shooter's motive so it can't really be classified as "terrorism."
Nothing against you Quizmaster, just a slight disagreement with your source, and I mean slight.
Quizmaster hasn't updated this quiz yet for 2020 numbers. The US has dropped off to number 29 (which is still a bit high), but it's not in the top 20 anymore.
Ah yes Utøya. I was wondering what Norway was doing on the list. I wonder if that really was terrorism? Thought terrorism was more organised and not just one man going crazy? I am sure though that it made no difference to the victims.
Well, terrorism is the use of terror (violent acts) for political, religious or ideological goals. So, even if he was alone, he had a purpose for doing the massacre.
The incident in Norway was pretty textbook terrorism. Breivik wasn't crazy. Not any moreso than any other terrorist, anyway. He had very clear goals, and was clear in his intent to use violence targeted at innocent civilians to try and affect public opinion. He warned of similar future attacks if Norway didn't change its immigration policies and attitude toward multiculturalism. This is pretty definitely terrorism. Some definitions of terrorism require that it be directed by a larger organization or conspiracy but I don't think those are in the majority.
With a few notable exceptions (Madrid bombings being one that springs to mind), terrorism almost always fails. It's a horrible and extremely inefficient, often counterproductive tactic. Guerilla warfare can work but terrorism is just a pointless, futile waste. Refuge of the truly desperate and/or ignorant.
Guerilla warfare and terrorism are often used by different sides describing the same thing. Irish Nationalists were able to win a power sharing government. The Provisional IRA and INLA always said they were fighting a guerilla war. The British government and unionist always said they were terrorists. I would say they were guerillas who sometimes used the tactic of terrorism. They weren't like other terrorists. They phoned in warnings to prevent civilian casualties and generally only targeted military, political, or economic targets. The goal of bombing public places was disruption not killing. Terrorism can work but the slaughter of innocent people won't further a cause. Property damage is far more likely to result in a favorable outcome than high body count.
trips it makes all the difference in the world how they go about doing it. If they warn people in advance and really don't want common civilians fearing for their lives, then, you're right it's not terrorism. I don't know enough about it really to comment intelligently but I was under the impression that the IRA did things like bomb pubs and such. That would probably be terrorism. If they are only targeting military outposts or infrastructure necessary to what they saw as the occupation of their land then it's not terrorism. Terrorists have no realistic hope of being able to win a strategic fight so they turn to... well... terrorism. It's easier scaring regular people than it is defeating a well equipped and well organized military.
If you condone the killing of Law Officers and Military personnel as not terrorist then the Police and Fire Service people killed in 9/11 were not killed by terrorists but by guerrilla warfare....... I don't think so.
Malbaby why do you even bother responding to me? You can never even follow what I'm saying. That's just not even close. I count four fallacies in your post and it's only a single sentence.
I got 9 out of 20 fun quiz norway took me by surprise i didnt think anders brevik caused as much harm as he did the score of norway before that would have been 0.00 no doubt?
Weird that the Vegas shooting should be listed as a terrorist act. As far as I know, the shooter had no real political aim or social motivation. I know that U.S. law enforcement has loosely redefined terrorism to include a host of other violent acts--mostly in a scrabble for some of those anti-terrorism Federal dollars--but the dictionary definition has not changed significantly. Simply killing a bunch of people really should not be considered terrorism.
But when you kill a bunch of people in a gay bar specifically because it's a gay bar, I'd say that meets the definition. People are still quite jumpy in gay nightclubs if there is any sort of loud, sudden gunshot-ish noise.
The gay bar shooting was in Miami. The Vegas incident to which JWC is referring was the one where the shooter killed a bunch of people attending a country music festival by shooting them from his hotel window. One could certainly be forgiven for getting the mass shooting mixed up though, because they happen so often.
True. It's also remarkable that the Vegas shooting made the US rate higher than France, for example - where on top of the jihadist terrorism also the Germanwings crash happened, arguably a mass killing with much more fatalities than the Vegas shooting. How can they stay below the US in a per capita comparison?
dunkinggandalf, he did fail for now but not so much in the long run. There are so many third world immigrants in Europe right now that that many countris in the European continent are very close to electing parties into power that are anti immigration (France, Netherlands and Switzerland just to name a few). Multiculturalism won't last in Europe partly because Europeans have had their own cultures for thousands of years and also partly because they're not just going to allow Europe to become a majority Muslim continent especially with the issue of Isis. They're gonna reach a breaking point eventually.
That's all pure speculation but assuming you're right and Europe cuts off immigration from Muslim countries, how much of that decision do you think will have been based on Anders going to a camping site and shooting a bunch of kids?
I think if anything his actions probably played in to the hands of Muslim apologists and sympathizers, by, for once, shoring up the popular leftists narrative of: "hey! terrorism knows no religion or race! White Christians can be terrorists just as easily as brown Muslims." Before Anders it was pretty hard to find notable examples of this. You'd have to dig back to The Troubles or Tim McVeigh or that cult in Japan with the Sarin gas. But then Breivik came along and now there's a horrifying, recent example that everyone remembers and it gives credence to this narrative that there is nothing especially dangerous about Muslims.
I would dispute about the DRC - it is actually no terrorism there, but a regular civil war which may be called a genocide. Also I'm surprised about not including Libya in the list.
I tried the ENTIRE Indochina/Asian Pacific islands region. By that, I mean every single country in SE Asia. The only two I skipped were Thailand and the Philippines because I thought "there definitely isn't enough war or terrorism in those two countries for them to make it onto this list".
shame they don't include mass shootings as terrorism (I can see why they don't) because we all know who would be right near the top then. the country that is restricting muslims entry but doing nothing about their out of control gun laws and what it leads to. Very odd state of affairs.
It's a shame that people don't care about word creep. If terrorism was expanded to mean everything that people try to make it mean then in the future the word is going to not have any meaning at all.
But apparently the stats do include mass shootings.
Saudi arabia isn't on here. They are the number one state sponsor of terrorism. If you can't find proof its because the United States government is in business with the corrupt saudis that's why they don't say they are state sponsors, but every American knows they are.
I'm an American. This is actually bullshit. Saudi Arabia (and by Saudi Arabia I mean the government a.k.a. the AlSaud family) is steadfastly opposed to terrorism, jihadism, and Islamism. It is by far the single greatest threat to their own prosperity and grip on power. It also is bad for business and the AlSauds are happy to be open for business with the West. They only draw the line at dealing with Israel and even then, not as firmly as many other Muslim countries. Those who believe they sponsor terrorists are naive or confused. What *does* happen is that a lot of Saudi money gets funneled into mosques, and Saudi-style Salafist mosques are often very conservative and fundamentalist and there is a very short line you can draw from fundamentalist Islam and Islamic terrorism. The KSA funds mosques all over the world and these mosques often end up radicalizing Muslims all over the place, even though they are instructed by the government not to. It's a side effect, not the intention.
Usama bin Laden was Saudi, but he had his citizenship revoked after he turned to a life of terrorism. He had to live in exile. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, both because bin Laden had many contacts in Saudi Arabia and could recruit there, and also because it was part of the plan: UBL was intentionally trying to sour the positive relationship between the AlSaud family and the United States, and get Americans to start thinking of Saudi Arabia as an enemy. That's the main reason he chose Saudi hijackers. He could have gotten Palestinians or Syrians to do it just as easily. But so much of the US response to 9/11 has been exactly what bin Laden anticipated and we've done much to play into his hands.
He probably didn't plan on getting capped in Abbottabad but, there are always bumps in the road.
This measures countries affected by terrorism, not countries from which it is perpetrated. Even if what you say is true, the countries affected by those terrorists are Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and so on, not Saudi Arabia itself.
also not true. :-/ come on guys... can we make even one factual but politically incorrect statement without immediately speeding toward overreaching generalization?
U.A.E, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, Kosovo, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Indonesia, and Malaysia are all Majority Muslim Countries and personally I would feel happy and pretty safe visiting them. Also consider that Ukraine and Ireland are two countries that have issues with terrorism, but are not Muslim. You just have to consider that Islam is most prominent in Africa and the Middle East. These are regions that were heavily colonized by Europeans. Before colonization, these were some of the greatest societies in the world. Not saying that it's all because of European Colonization, but that was a factor.
Of course colonialism was a factor in the destruction of some African and Middle East societies. Colonial powers left many of their colonies politically unstable and economically crippled.
I'm not a huge fan of citing logical fallacies all the time, as, even when statements or opinions incorporate logical fallacies, they are still often true or based on fact, and this is just the way that most people communicate. However, in this case, I think stronger evidence definitely is needed, as, as I pointed out above, the evidence available points very strongly in the opposite direction of the common sense thing being asserted. There are more places with a colonial history that do not produce a lot of terrorists than there are places with a colonial past that do. A lot more. There seems to be almost zero, and perhaps a negative, correlation.
The list is a mix of all kind of countries. But yeah, Muslim countries make up the majority here, but that doesn't mean the religion is bad. Corrupted government, bad infrastructure, poverty, etc all have a say in it. Muslim majority countries like Albania, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Senegal are very safe to visit.
During the Intifada they did. Since they built the separation wall this is no longer true. The number of casualties from terrorism in Israel since 2010 has been tiny. I'm not sure what the date range is for the quiz as the link to the source appears to have expired.
If it's from 2006-2016 then this would be after the first section of the wall was completed and incidents had already dropped dramatically from pre-2003 levels.
No Zimbabwe? Must be a pretty narrow definition of "terrorism" if Mugabe's goons aren't counted. (Now he's been removed I'm sure his successor is just as bad)
There's usually a flag from the quiz on the thumbnail, and if there's majority of muslim countries, of course there will be one of them on the thumbnail...
i would have thought Colombia would appear on the list. the paramilitary groups are definitely terrorists and they kill almost daily. checking the source it appears Colombia is 27th on the list
Two factors. 1) Israel has had very low rates of terrorism fatalities since 2003, before that it was a major problem, but not recently. and 2) the index uses a very poor definition for terrorism which includes any mass-shootings whether they were perpetrated by terrorists or not, and the USA has lots of those.
Thailand? Not a country I would expect to be on here. I know they have a conflict in their southern region, but I always thought it was relatively minor. Could be wrong though.
I would occasionally see stories in the local papers about incidents in the southern provinces, too, but nobody in Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Phuket, Chon Buri or other places seemed to be worried much about this. Sometimes they had guards posted outside of public transportation doing a really half-assed job of searching people's bags and belongings but that's the only thing I noticed.
I think this quiz should be updated? When I click on the source, it gives me an error page. Also, I looked at the organization that makes this index, and it looks like they've updated the list for 2019.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Nothing against you Quizmaster, just a slight disagreement with your source, and I mean slight.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Welp. At least I got Sri Lanka.
But apparently the stats do include mass shootings.
He probably didn't plan on getting capped in Abbottabad but, there are always bumps in the road.
Muslim: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan.
Muslim/Christian: Nigeria.
Christian: United States, South Sudan, Congo-Kinshasa, Kenya, Philippines, Central African Republic, Cameroon.
Hindu: India.
Buddhist: Thailand.
Maybe too controversial