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

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not often reported either that over 2 years alone, Israel has suffered over 20.000 terrorist attacks. 20.000, that's a staggering number that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the Western world.

And yet somehow, Israel manages to rack up a larger civilian body count than those terrorists, which is something else that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world.

Not be tolerated anywhere else??? For what definition of "anywhere" is this remotely true? When terrorists attack from civilian areas there are lots of civilian casualties. Israel's track record on this is second to none--and I include the US in this list. Our record is much worse.

- - - Updated - - -

How many of them are actually active these days? There were a lot of Marxist-Leninist groups in the past but they withered when Moscow quit funding them.

Interesting thread. Makes me think about what gets reported in the news on this front. On the surface, you'd think Angelo is spot on but to my surprise, his original statement really misses the mark.
How do we know who's active and to what extent? I've been looking at the Jewish Defense League and trying to make just that determination.
Gotta dig in .gov

"I acted alone and on orders from God"
-Yigal Amir

For a yardstick, how about the number they killed in 2013? (The last year for which data would exist.)

 

[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.)

If "attacking what they see as enemies" makes them not terrorists, there aren't a whole lot of terrorists left.

Most terrorists are shooting at those they know to be non-combatants. The doctor-shooters are shooting at people they consider to be mass murderers, not civilians.

 

[angelo]

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.

Even since 2005 like someone has posted?

 

[angelo]

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.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I'll say it again to clarify my statement.................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! You have failed to place a damper on that statement!

 

[angelo]

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.

According to all protocols of majorities, 51% is a clear majority. In an election the party than can secure 51% of the vote is elected with a mini landslide.

 

[angelo]

Bilby, I know where you're coming from and your political leanings so I'll add this. Multiculturalists are incapable of critical thought, and in a deep sense are more racists than the racists they claim to fight.

Instead of fighting injustice wherever it occurs, they turn a blind eye if it's black on black violance, or muslim on muslim barbarity, or muslim on Jewish attacks.

It's conveniently ignored the repeated statements by Hamas for example, to initiate another Holocaust on the Jews given half a chance. Hamas, a terrorist affiliate of the muslim brotherhood who strive for a worldwide islamic caliphate.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

According to all protocols of majorities, 51% is a clear majority. In an election the party than can secure 51% of the vote is elected with a mini landslide.

You didn't say 'a clear majority', you said (post #5 of this thread, quoted in full, emphasis added): 'The facts are that no, not all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorist are muslim!'

This statement is false under any definition of terrorism, and according to any relevant or even semi-relevant source we have seen. Support it or retract it, because otherwise, clearly you are the one who is incapable not only of critical thought but more importantly of admitting facts to influence their world view.

 

[Jokodo]

If "attacking what they see as enemies" makes them not terrorists, there aren't a whole lot of terrorists left.

Most terrorists are shooting at those they know to be non-combatants. The doctor-shooters are shooting at people they consider to be mass murderers, not civilians.

So attacks on army personell or government institutions don't count either? That's an interesting and quite possibly useful definition, but it's not the one that has been used by any of the sources used in this thread, so their numbers are worthless under your definition.

 

[angelo]

Can I re-post an earlier post here since it's a new thread?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/thelist.htm

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Oh, what you meant was it's inconsistent of the NCTC to define terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" and then to include incidents such as "A suicide IED targeting an Afghan National Army bus killed seven soldiers and four civilians in Kabul.", and to report that over 10% of the 12,000 total victims were soldiers? Yes, it is; some of the Taliban attacks should have been excluded; but that's not what you said. It's not as though the NCTC also classifying government attacks on Taliban fighters as terrorism would have made what they wrote any more consistent. And it's not as though if they overstated the figures for Taliban terrorist attacks by 10%, then it would have been fairer for them to overstate the figures for government terrorist attacks by 900% in compensation.

 

[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.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I'll say it again to clarify my statement.................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! You have failed to place a damper on that statement!

Hmmm.

You do know that your original statement is on record, right?

You know - so anyone can go and see what you actually said?

Is this a retraction? Are you saying that your claim that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims" is, indeed, wrong?

If so, then that's a good thing - admitting that you were wrong is the honest thing to do.

But pretending that you said something that is not quite what you actually said? That's not honest at all.

And claiming that my direct quote of your statement is misrepresenting you? That's really unreasonable. And quite ugly.

 

[angelo]

You are misrepresenting what I said. I'll say it again to clarify my statement.................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! You have failed to place a damper on that statement!

Hmmm.

You do know that your original statement is on record, right?

You know - so anyone can go and see what you actually said?

Is this a retraction? Are you saying that your claim that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims" is, indeed, wrong?

If so, then that's a good thing - admitting that you were wrong is the honest thing to do.

But pretending that you said something that is not quite what you actually said? That's not honest at all.

And claiming that my direct quote of your statement is misrepresenting you? That's really unreasonable. And quite ugly.

FFS, this is my statement................................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! Isn't that the same thing?

 

[bilby]

Hmmm.

You do know that your original statement is on record, right?

You know - so anyone can go and see what you actually said?

Is this a retraction? Are you saying that your claim that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims" is, indeed, wrong?

If so, then that's a good thing - admitting that you were wrong is the honest thing to do.

But pretending that you said something that is not quite what you actually said? That's not honest at all.

And claiming that my direct quote of your statement is misrepresenting you? That's really unreasonable. And quite ugly.

FFS, this is my statement................................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! Isn't that the same thing?

No, it isn't. You can tell by the way the two statements contain different words and all.

If you wish to withdraw your original claim, and accept that it was incorrect, then you are not only free to do so - it is positively encouraged, and will make others think better of you.

 

[angelo]

No, it isn't. You can tell by the way the two statements contain different words and all.

If you wish to withdraw your original claim, and accept that it was incorrect, then you are not only free to do so - it is positively encouraged, and will make others think better of you.

No, I will do no such thing. Good try but it won't work. You know as well as I do that the statement is correct.

 

[bilby]

No, it isn't. You can tell by the way the two statements contain different words and all.

If you wish to withdraw your original claim, and accept that it was incorrect, then you are not only free to do so - it is positively encouraged, and will make others think better of you.

No, I will do no such thing. Good try but it won't work. You know as well as I do that the statement is correct.

Oh dear.

Then why did you try to modify it, rather than trying to prove it?

 

[angelo]

Try to modify it???

 

[bilby]

Try to modify it???

Yes, try to modify it.

You are not able to support a claim that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims" by reference to a different statement.

If you want to prove it, you have to prove it.

Not something a bit like it. Not something that you wish you had said instead.

Your claim is false. Even if you can prove a similar (but not identical) claim to be true, your initial claim remains false.

There are only two ways out.

Prove that "Almost all terrorists are Muslims"; or admit that this is not the case.

Even if you could prove a similar but non-identical statement, that won't make your initial claim any less wrong.

If you can prove that almost all terrorists are muskrats, then that still says nothing about the veracity of your initial claim.

Being wrong is not a big deal.

Being deceitful is.

 

[dx713]

The facts are that no, not all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorist are muslim!

You are misrepresenting what I said. I'll say it again to clarify my statement.................Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim! You have failed to place a damper on that statement!

Try to modify it???

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Oh, what you meant was it's inconsistent of the NCTC to define terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" and then to include incidents such as "A suicide IED targeting an Afghan National Army bus killed seven soldiers and four civilians in Kabul.", and to report that over 10% of the 12,000 total victims were soldiers? Yes, it is; some of the Taliban attacks should have been excluded; but that's not what you said. It's not as though the NCTC also classifying government attacks on Taliban fighters as terrorism would have made what they wrote any more consistent. And it's not as though if they overstated the figures for Taliban terrorist attacks by 10%, then it would have been fairer for them to overstate the figures for government terrorist attacks by 900% in compensation.

If you agree that 'some of the Taliban attacks should have been excluded', and if we can further agree that the report gives insufficient details to conclude how many have to be excluded (as is rather obvious), then it follows that their figures for Afghanistan are worthless and by implication so are any figures for global totals that include their Afghanistan figures. We can thus choose to either dismiss the report as a whole, or use it as a source for figures on terrorism in the-world-minus-AfPak.

 

[metacristi]

'Nearly all' or 'most' terrorists are muslims is not really relevant here, the main problem is that there are too many muslims doing that in the name of islam in spite of centuries now of exposure of the muslim world to Modernity. Which points naturally toward the real basis of the problem, the religious ideology behind these actions. I'm afraid we cannot hide here behind 'others do that too', while basically all ideologies can be misused to justify violence there is plenty of evidence* that islam makes much more easily to justify violence and discrimination than let's say other Abrahamic relgions (fully in agreement with Sam Harris on this by the way).

Evaluating islam and the actions it causes entirely via analogies with the situation in Christianity or Judaism do not really help. In reality a true Islamic Enlightenment is needed and waiting for it while doing basically nothing to 'catalyse' it is not that far from waiting for the spontaneous generation (we should pay a closer look at the basis of islam to understand why this is the case and why, contrary to what some say, islam has only minimally been 'permeated' by the progressive ideas of Enlightenment, indeed still no counterpart to liberal Christianity or Reform Judaism there) .

islam is far from being the harmless religion presented by some here, the existing (very strong) evidence* points in the other direction, Pat Condell's view regarding the western apologists of islam is in fact fully justified (Laughing at the new Inquisition). As the situation presents today (still no profound changes at the institutional, educational and theological levels of islam) the 'muslim progressives' stand no chance, I'm afraid a bright future for the Islamic world without big changes in the Islamic worldview (including at the level of religious education) is merely a huge illusion.

Let's be serious islam is a big problem (it can be safely individualized from other religions) and future will prove that more and more. Finally trying to delegitimize the rational critics of islam via fraudulent use of words (like 'islamophobia') do not count as an argument.






* for example

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/the-islamic-state-and-islam/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM

islam has definitely much more very controversial aspects than homosexuality or abortion and the so called 'muslim progressives' have very few justification for their views in both the theology and history of islam; finally i'm afraid one cannot claim both the 'inerrancy' of the quran (Muhammad the 'perfect being') and high compatibility with Modernity via Rationality (as 'progressive' muslims still maintain at the moment), only some huge mental gymnastics and self-deceit can offer an illusion of having solved the problem once and forever (in fact there is no surpise that so many, even very well educated, find so easy to resort to violence again and again)