"Almost all terrorists are Muslim" derail split from "Rants"

[Keith&Co.]

A good rule of thumb may be that if you hear about a terrorist act and you make the assumption that those who did it were Muslims, how often are you going to be wrong?

But that's supporting the statement, most terrorist ACTS are committed by Muslims...or in Islam's name. There may be a plurality of Christain terrorists, but the Muslims either are busier or just get more media attention.

Maybe Muslims are just self-starters.

It still doesn't quite justify angelo's claim.

 

[Jayjay]

To be fair, though, the reason it isn't often reported is that it is only true if you stretch the definition of a terrorist attack beyond its breaking point.

There really is no point in all these deflection tactics anyway - your initial assertion is in question here, and you can't get away from it by trying to shift your argument to something different. You were and are wrong to assert that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims". That remains untrue, even if you sidetrack discussion into a debate about Israel.

Shit, not even all terrorists in Israel are Muslims - they have their very own radical Jewish terrorist organisations too.

Not even all Palestinian terrorists are Muslims - e.g. the  Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was founded a Greek Orthodox Christian.

47 years ago. Times have changed. I think you'd have a hard time finding a recent non-Muslim terrorist in Palestine now that hard-core Marxism has gone out of style.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A good rule of thumb may be that if you hear about a terrorist act and you make the assumption that those who did it were Muslims, how often are you going to be wrong?

But that's supporting the statement, most terrorist ACTS are committed by Muslims...or in Islam's name. There may be a plurality of Christain terrorists, but the Muslims either are busier or just get more media attention.

Maybe Muslims are just self-starters.

It still doesn't quite justify angelo's claim.

Well, that just seems to be overly pedantic for the sake of increasing the amount of pedanticness in the thread. If you and a couple of buddies start the Boston branch of Boko Haram and just sit in your mom's basement talking about how you're totally going to get around to throwing acid in the faces of some women who are walking around town dressed like sluts while taking a spot in a university class away from a more deserving man, but probably not until after next month's big World of Warcraft tournament, you're technically a member of a terrorist organization but when other people use the word "terrorist" in a sentence, they're not actually talking about you.

The only terrorists who matter are those who actually commit acts of terrorism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It still doesn't quite justify angelo's claim.

Well, that just seems to be overly pedantic for the sake of increasing the amount of pedanticness in the thread. ....

Sure. Let's call it being pedantic.
angelo made a claim and can't support it, and when challenged tries to obscure his actual claim, but maybe he can support claims LIKE his claim. That's close enough, sure.

The only terrorists who matter are those who actually commit acts of terrorism.

Sure. If angelo can't say where he got the idea that almost all terrorists are muslim, we can pretend he said 'the important terrorists are almost all..."
Or his other attempt, 'the realliest meanest terrorists are...'
Or the FBI only wants to arrest the terrorists who are...

So, what exactly would we call the accusation of pedantry? Shifting of the burden of what gets to be considered close enough to call 'evidence' for a claim?

 

[Jokodo]

A good rule of thumb may be that if you hear about a terrorist act and you make the assumption that those who did it were Muslims, how often are you going to be wrong?

For instance, if gunmen attack a village, kill all the men and drag off all the women and girls, what are the odds that the Prophet comes up in the first sentence of their justification for doing it? If various people shoot up or blow up government buildings here and there, what percentage of them are going to have selected Koranic verses found in their apartments or on their Facebook posts?

When that guy shot up the Canadian Parliament buildings, everybody's first assumption was that ISIS was going to figure prominently in his rationales and everybody was right. When that bomb went off at the Boston marathon, everybody figured that radical Islam was the guiding force behind why the bomb was placed there and everyone was right. There seems to be a very good reason that the go-to assumption involves Allah.

When that bomb when off in central Oslo, a lot of people's first assumption was that al Qaeda was behind it (some newspapers actually published pieces based on the premise).

Turned out that the perpetuator was a guy whose justifications are barely distinguishable from some things said in this very thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that just seems to be overly pedantic for the sake of increasing the amount of pedanticness in the thread. ....

Sure. Let's call it being pedantic.
angelo made a claim and can't support it, and when challenged tries to obscure his actual claim, but maybe he can support claims LIKE his claim. That's close enough, sure.

The only terrorists who matter are those who actually commit acts of terrorism.

Sure. If angelo can't say where he got the idea that almost all terrorists are muslim, we can pretend he said 'the important terrorists are almost all..."
Or his other attempt, 'the realliest meanest terrorists are...'
Or the FBI only wants to arrest the terrorists who are...

So, what exactly would we call the accusation of pedantry? Shifting of the burden of what gets to be considered close enough to call 'evidence' for a claim?

Well, he was clearly referencing terrorist acts in the OP. If you have multiple definitions of the word "terrorist" and one of those definitions is "people who commit terrorist acts" and muslims are the majority under that definition and another definition is "people who are members of a terrorist organization" and muslims are the minority under that definition, then the fact that his claim only meets one of the possible definitions of the word doesn't mean that he's shifting anything when the context of the post was clearly talking about a definition where it's the case.

It's true that the word "terrorist" is a broader umbrella term which not only includes those who commit the acts, but also those who are members of the organizations and likely many other things. When the context of the usage is made as clearly as he made it, however, then the ones who ignore the context of the usage and focus on the literal definition absent any context are the ones who are being overly pedantic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A good rule of thumb may be that if you hear about a terrorist act and you make the assumption that those who did it were Muslims, how often are you going to be wrong?

For instance, if gunmen attack a village, kill all the men and drag off all the women and girls, what are the odds that the Prophet comes up in the first sentence of their justification for doing it? If various people shoot up or blow up government buildings here and there, what percentage of them are going to have selected Koranic verses found in their apartments or on their Facebook posts?

When that guy shot up the Canadian Parliament buildings, everybody's first assumption was that ISIS was going to figure prominently in his rationales and everybody was right. When that bomb went off at the Boston marathon, everybody figured that radical Islam was the guiding force behind why the bomb was placed there and everyone was right. There seems to be a very good reason that the go-to assumption involves Allah.

When that bomb when off in central Oslo, a lot of people's first assumption was that al Qaeda was behind it (some newspapers actually published pieces based on the premise).

Turned out that the perpetuator was a guy whose justifications are barely distinguishable from some things said in this very thread.

Umm ... ya.

Is there some part of words such as "odds" and "percentage" and "most" which is non-trivial to understand?

 

[Underseer]

When that bomb when off in central Oslo, a lot of people's first assumption was that al Qaeda was behind it (some newspapers actually published pieces based on the premise).

Turned out that the perpetuator was a guy whose justifications are barely distinguishable from some things said in this very thread.

Umm ... ya.

Is there some part of words such as "odds" and "percentage" and "most" which is non-trivial to understand?

And yet when we look at the actual statistics, Muslims make up a minority of terrorist attacks. Isn't it fascinating how the "liberal media" can make people jump to the conclusion that every terrorist attack must be Muslim despite the actual statistics?

 

[Jokodo]

When that bomb when off in central Oslo, a lot of people's first assumption was that al Qaeda was behind it (some newspapers actually published pieces based on the premise).

Turned out that the perpetuator was a guy whose justifications are barely distinguishable from some things said in this very thread.

Umm ... ya.

Is there some part of words such as "odds" and "percentage" and "most" which is non-trivial to understand?

Single examples do not and cannot as a matter of principle support claims about "odds", "percentage", and "most". Any parts of your post that contain such claims are thus best ignored, for your own benefit.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Umm ... ya.

Is there some part of words such as "odds" and "percentage" and "most" which is non-trivial to understand?

Single examples do not and cannot as a matter of principle support claims about "odds", "percentage", and "most". Any parts of your post that contain such claims are thus best ignored, for your own benefit.

I never said that they did. Single examples can, however, be used to discuss broader points.

 

[bilby]

The claim was not 'most'. It was 'Almost all'.

'Almost all' may not be a well defined proportion, but it is stretching the meaning beyond its limits to accept as little as two-thirds or even four fifths as 'almost all', particularly for a sample space of thousands of attacks by hundreds of thousands of terrorists worldwide.

If two thirds of Model-T Fords are black, is it correct to say 'Model-Ts are almost all black'?

It is debatable whether a majority of terrorists are Muslims - depending on your definition of both 'terrorist' and 'Muslim', it might be true, although it probably isn't.

But even if one could show that 51% of terrorists are Muslims, that wouldn't justify Angelo's original claim.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The claim was not 'most'. It was 'Almost all'.

'Almost all' may not be a well defined proportion, but it is stretching the meaning beyond its limits to accept as little as two-thirds or even four fifths as 'almost all', particularly for a sample space of thousands of attacks by hundreds of thousands of terrorists worldwide.

If two thirds of Model-T Fords are black, is it correct to say 'Model-Ts are almost all black'?

It is debatable whether a majority of terrorists are Muslims - depending on your definition of both 'terrorist' and 'Muslim', it might be true, although it probably isn't.

But even if one could show that 51% of terrorists are Muslims, that wouldn't justify Angelo's original claim.

Fair point.

 

[Jokodo]

The data posted thus far by Bilby seems good up until 2005.
More recent data shows Sunnis are carrying the load these days. I've only skimmed this but here's is some info:

For your perusal
fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf
Story: http://http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

But I can take comfort in the fact that

According to the report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year.

Or not.

You should have read a bit further:

The Near East and South Asia suffered 7,721 attacks and 9,236 deaths. The majority of those occurred in
just three countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan—which, together, accounted for 85 percent of
attacks in these regions and almost 64 percent of attacks worldwide. While attacks in Afghanistan and
Iraq decreased from 2010 by 14 and 16 percent, respectively, attacks in Pakistan increased by 8 percent.1

So either there is something wrong with their numbers or, assuming - which is I think a fair assumption - that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and quite a few in Iraq were by Sunni extremists, there aren't a lot of Sunni extremist attacks left if we leave those countries out - as we should (at least the first two): The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such. So the figures for those countries are worthless.

 

[Jokodo]

Single examples do not and cannot as a matter of principle support claims about "odds", "percentage", and "most". Any parts of your post that contain such claims are thus best ignored, for your own benefit.

I never said that they did. Single examples can, however, be used to discuss broader points.

They can be. But I don't really see any broader point beyond "people tend to assume that any terrorist attack is by Islamists and here's a couple of cases where they turned out to be right, so assuming that any terrorist act is by Islamists can't be totally wrong".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So either there is something wrong with their numbers or, assuming which is I think a fair assumption, that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and quite a few in Iraq were by Sunni extremists, there aren't a lot of Sunni extremist attacks left if we leave those countries out - as we should (at least the first two): The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such. So the figures for those countries are worthless.

Which really does speak to the basic definition of terrorism.

Canada currently has soldiers over in the Middle East flying around shooting at ISIS soldiers and trying to kill their leaders. ISIS made a call for people to join up as their soldiers and one of them shot a soldier and ran into the Parliament buildings in an attempt to kill our leaders. The latter is defined as a terrorist and the former is not. Why?

 

[bilby]

So either there is something wrong with their numbers or, assuming which is I think a fair assumption, that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and quite a few in Iraq were by Sunni extremists, there aren't a lot of Sunni extremist attacks left if we leave those countries out - as we should (at least the first two): The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such. So the figures for those countries are worthless.

Which really does speak to the basic definition of terrorism.

Canada currently has soldiers over in the Middle East flying around shooting at ISIS soldiers and trying to kill their leaders. ISIS made a call for people to join up as their soldiers and one of them shot a soldier and ran into the Parliament buildings in an attempt to kill our leaders. The latter is defined as a terrorist and the former is not. Why?

Good question. The way some people today (including some in government) define terrorism seems to be 'any attack on people we don't dislike, by people we don't like'.

By that definition, the German terror attacks in France between 1914 and 1918 were truly horrible - and on the principle that we should assume all terrorists to be Muslims, we can conclude that Kaiser Wilhelm II prayed to Mecca five times a day...

 

[Bomb#20]

The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such.

Your reasoning being what, that if the Taliban are targeting noncombatants then it seems inconsistent to say the central government and its allies are targeting Taliban fighters?

 

[Jokodo]

The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such.

Your reasoning being what, that if the Taliban are targeting noncombatants then it seems inconsistent to say the central government and its allies are targeting Taliban fighters?

Huh? If by 'combatants' you mean people generally involved in the war: The statistics in the link does not exclude attacks against military personell, so no, even if it were true that the central government (and allies) only ever targets Taliban fighters, their attacks should either be included or at least some of the Taliban attacks excluded, otherwise it remains inconsistent.
If, on the other hand, by 'combatants' you mean people currently involved in fighting, then sure you are aware that almost all drone attacks are against non-combattants?

 

[TV and credit cards]

The data posted thus far by Bilby seems good up until 2005.
More recent data shows Sunnis are carrying the load these days. I've only skimmed this but here's is some info:

For your perusal
fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf
Story: http://http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

But I can take comfort in the fact that Or not.

You should have read a bit further:

The Near East and South Asia suffered 7,721 attacks and 9,236 deaths. The majority of those occurred in
just three countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan—which, together, accounted for 85 percent of
attacks in these regions and almost 64 percent of attacks worldwide. While attacks in Afghanistan and
Iraq decreased from 2010 by 14 and 16 percent, respectively, attacks in Pakistan increased by 8 percent.1

So either there is something wrong with their numbers or, assuming - which is I think a fair assumption - that the overwhelming majority of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and quite a few in Iraq were by Sunni extremists, there aren't a lot of Sunni extremist attacks left if we leave those countries out - as we should (at least the first two): The situation there is (and was) one of war, with whole stretches of countryside controlled by the Taliban. Without denying their atrocities, it seems inconsistent to classify bombings by the Taliban in the central government controlled areas as "terrorism" without also classifying bombings by the central government and its allies in Taliban controlled areas as such. So the figures for those countries are worthless.

Okay. How about you create a list of countries that qualify for terrorist attacks and your specific definition of what a terrorist attack is, don't forget what you may deem as justifiable retaliation when you get to Israel, and we can work from there. I mean there's no point in furthering the conversation until then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're often described as terrorists. (Although I'm not sure I would call the doctor-shooters terrorists. They're attacking what they see as enemies.)

How about the people who set abortion clinics on fire, and set bombs to go off when the firemen come to fight the casualty? That seems pretty terroristic to me.

Note that I only excluded the doctor-shooters. What you are describing certainly is terrorism.