The answer to the question posted in part 1:

Of course you didn't get it right! And not only because you didn't understand the word separatist.

Shocked? Yes - those awful Islamist extremists you spend your days fearing committed an amount of terror attacks so goddamned low in 2006 compared to other various terrorist factions that you can't even really see their slice of the pie. Here's the figures by country:

Hmm...a slight mismatch with commonly-held reality in the UK, no? To be precise, as kind edjay, who entirely inspired this post, points out in the forum, this means that 99.8% of terror attacks were not committed by anything Islam-related.

Spinwatch suggests that some biases are inherent in the figures, with the Europol report under-reporting right-wing terrorism (countries often categorise this as extremism, not terrorism - see this story for example of something that if done by the people that "look like terrorists" would likely have had a totally different ending) and over-reporting the left (G8-esque summit political protests that do end in damage to property may not fit everyone's definition of terror, but to be fair, watch out for the Poorhouse's left-leaning biases when thinking about this), but nonetheless add or subtract a few percentage points and the conclusion the Poorhouse is trying to point out here still very much stands.

Spinwatch go on to do a quick Lexis-Nexis search to check out the terrorism reports in the UK national press that year. They find 26577 stories that mention terrorism, 7620 with reference to Islam. The Poorhouse was actually quite surprised how low the ration was there, but nonetheless, the fact that nearly 30% of UK terror stories related to 0.2% of actual terror incidents that year - none of which happened in the UK - suggests something of a reporting bias.

And this isn't the only European discrepancy in the world of terror. Check out these arrest stats . UK not included, because they're presumably too ashamed to share. Let it be known though that there are plenty of stories of Muslim terror arrests going on around the UK, so it's not like none happen - many of course are later freed due to no evidence, which is less vividly reported by the red-tops, and indeed nigh on every other news outlet. Here we go: arrested terrorism suspects in 2006.

Over a third of the arrests were aimed at perpetrators of just 0.2% of terror attacks that year. As the report concludes:

Investigations into Islamist terrorism are clearly a priority for Member States’ law enforcement as demonstrated by the number of arrested suspects reported by Member States.

To play devil's advocate, or at least give another side a fair hearing, there are a few hypotheses as to why this could be a legitimate state of affairs. 

The large majority of the 498 attacks above resulted in material damage with no loss of life. Since the dreaded 9/11, the world knows that fanatics of a certain particularly evil distortion of Islam like to aim big. The mass of separatist and other attacks seem to be much more targeted, with specific, sometimes not human, victims of violence. If, for instance, the average terror attack kills say 2 people (figures entirely made up here) but the average Islam-extremist attack kills 500, then one can see why so much concentration is put on deterring the latter sort of attack.

We should continue however to bear in mind that no terror attack is trivial. Well, it shouldn't be, anyway. As the report says, the European member states concerned here have all had to align their terror legislation to a common definition. This is in annexe 2 of the report, but basically consists of things that "include the use of violence with the intention of, for instance, seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country as required for a terrorist offence under Member States’ national laws." (to slightly confusingly use the reverse of the definition of not terrorism found on p11 of the report). No crime with these sorts of attributes should ever be disregarded.

Also, many arrests on terror charges are not direct "you did the attack, go to prison" type arrests. In fact, under 10% of Islamist arrests in this population were for the actual preparation or carrying out of an attack, the big majority being more for being members of a known terrorist organisation. The Poorhouse doesn't have the breakdown of the other types of terrorist arrests, so perhaps by looking at these stats as a whole we are comparing apples with oranges. Perhaps, unlikely as it sounds, the sheer number of people involved in the planning of Islamist terror attacks is that much greater than those who plan the far greater quantity of other attacks. Either way though, the table still shows the quantity of suspects that nation states are arresting for terror charges, whatever the charge.

Lastly, some - not the Poorhouse has ever heard anyone do so particularly - might argue that the reason there are so few Islamist terror attacks is because of the effort put into and "success" of arresting suspects. Perhaps arresting 257 Islamist terror-guys stopped 257 extra attacks. Even then, they'd be well behind the separatists mind.

In any case, the point of this article is not to say for sure where anti-terror resources should be aimed. There's not enough information here to give an informed opinion. What there is enough information to show though is that the near-universal mindset in many parts of the "civilised" West that terrorism is always commited by bearded religious folk is absolute bullshit. Statistically, in these European countries, in 2006, you were 497 times more likely to be caught up in some kind of non-Islamist terror incident than one perpetrated by a very largely innocent section of the population which we are continuously being indoctrinated to fear as the one true enemy.

Thanks again to Edjay for providing the original link!