I see your point there bob, I mean selectivly disclosing accurate data so that people it fits the narrative you want people to belive. A narraive that would not entirly suriave full disclosure.... seems a perprectly reasonable thing to do, certainly the NRA would agree with you.
The gun lobby use this techniqe using accurate data to show that the UK without gun control has a higher assult rate than the UK. The data is accurate, but full disclosure shows this to be a lie.
Now given the most people's concern about terrorism is getting killed. why choose to only display number of terrorist incidents, why not number ot deaths. In the case of the loonwatch artical, its simply because the terrorist incident data supported their narrative and the alternative data did not.
both the deaths resulting from terroism and terrorist incidents subsets are both accurate and give polar opposite impressions of where the problem lies.
This is spin, it is food for fools, who will lap up any spin or lie if agrees with what they would like to be true. Its how you turn accurate stats and data into lies
Booners laps this up.... as it would appear you do.
If you are in the army or police in spain, corcia or northern ireland then in terms of the risk of dying in a terrorist attack, separatist terrors represent much of that risk. If you are an ordinary European civilian, then Islamic terrorism is a significant proportion of that risk.
To say the terrorism is almost all muslim is a lie
To say that islamic terrorism is an insignificant component terrorism in europe also a lie
That is unless you have decided you want to believe one of these lies, because it agrees with what you would like to be true. In which case, as you say, whats the problem?
The point is that this risk is very low, much lower than being killed crossing the road. A risk we do not get paranoid about, stressed over or loose sleep. So it is rather silly to get so wound up about a risk that is even smaller.
There is a problem is islamic terrorism, but it is nowhere near serious enough to justify giving up our freedoms, chaining our behaviors or the very nature of our societies to fight it. but to say it is not a problem and to fail to take reasonable steps to contain and mitigate against it, could cause it to become a significact problem that could destabilize our society, by radicalizing people into the hard right.