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

[Warpoet]

And metacristi inevitably arrives to shit up the thread with Islamophobic tripe masquerading as intellectual inquiry and links to whackjob websites.

Yes, Muslims have had centuries of exposure to modernity, so it must be Islam that's the problem here. One might as well point out that slavery ended, what, 150 years ago, and yet those damned blacks are still stealing shit and killing each other. Let's not try to break down the issue intelligently and analyze the myriad of factors at play; no, let's apply reductive reasoning and zero in on the explanation that most suits our own narrow, ideological agenda. That's far more rational.

 

[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!

Try to modify it???

FFS. So the argument is boiling down to "most"or "nearly all" . Pray tell, what's the farking huge difference????

 

[angelo]

Such short memories. The London bombings and the over 700 victims with 52 dead are so easily forgotten even after the 9/11 atrocities where there were over 3000 deaths with ten times that number of injured, all in the name of the religion of peace. That some have the audacity to defend this death cult is reprehensible to say the least, but not surprising seeing where it's coming from!!!!

 

[Jokodo]

Try to modify it???

FFS. So the argument is boiling down to "most"or "nearly all" . Pray tell, what's the farking huge difference????

The difference is, that, depending on definitions, one might be true, while the other one very definitely isn't. You made a factually false claim, it has been pointed out to you that you did, that was when you should have retracted it if you are at all interested in appearing as a reasonable person.

 

[Underseer]

Try to modify it???

FFS. So the argument is boiling down to "most"or "nearly all" . Pray tell, what's the farking huge difference????

Even if there was no difference between the two, your statement isn't remotely true.

At most you can say that the American media is more likely to report terrorism while using the word terrorism when it's carried out by Muslims. This leaves in the American public the perception that all or most terrorism is done entirely by Muslims, and you know what?

That's not even true in America.

 

[angelo]

Try to modify it???

FFS. So the argument is boiling down to "most"or "nearly all" . Pray tell, what's the farking huge difference????

Even if there was no difference between the two, your statement isn't remotely true.

At most you can say that the American media is more likely to report terrorism while using the word terrorism when it's carried out by Muslims. This leaves in the American public the perception that all or most terrorism is done entirely by Muslims, and you know what?

That's not even true in America.

I agreed with that. Even taking into consideration 9/11, islamic terrorism is limited in the North American continent to a small percentage of total. But hey man, where have you been? In Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Africa, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, there have been millions of victims of islamic terrorism. Not one of those victims including thousands of xtians terrorised themselves.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The op was poorly worded as "almost all" puts in the mind of the reader a percentage somewhat greater than 90%. A casual comment probably based on years of news reports. Obviously, not solely US news reports. The counter, while correct (4%) was correct up until 2005 so for these purposes also very wrong as the actual number was 57%. Both should have quietly walked away at this point. But we're not here to learn. We're here to be more right than the other guy.
To those who would dismiss the methodology of the data collection of the NCTC, would it not be proper to counter with something factual? Of course this is a bit unreasonable, the US is pretty much the only game in town here so until China steps up and starts giving us some real numbers we can work with, we're pretty much stuck with US data collection.
A couple opportunities were presented to define terrorism and terrorist attack. Perhaps there was something useful in there. I gave up after reading a number of snarky remarks and people conflating war with terrorism. Whether a nation acts or a group (individual) acts is important for how other nations respond. This is the difference. Not that one is any less heinous than the other.

 

[angelo]

The war against terrorism that George W went to pains to point out "wasn't a war against islam" really is a war against islam. The Western media and many politicians of many persuasions can delude themselves and their subjects/voters into thinking otherwise, but any fool can pick up a quran and read for himself what this death cult is all about. Mo the warmonger paedophile is considered as the prophet of allah and the the most perfect man who ever lived by at least the majority of muslims who all strive to be just like him. Anyone who criticisers Mo or islam in any way is at risk of starting a riot. Yet, criticism of xtianity or Jeebus is just laughed off or ignored by most xtians. These are facts.

 

[dystopian]

Such short memories. The London bombings and the over 700 victims with 52 dead are so easily forgotten even after the 9/11 atrocities where there were over 3000 deaths with ten times that number of injured, all in the name of the religion of peace. That some have the audacity to defend this death cult is reprehensible to say the least, but not surprising seeing where it's coming from!!!!

Reprehensible as such acts were; they were not committed in a vacuum but rather the logical result of western foreign policy. If you were to hold every muslim accountable for the violent actions of a few among them, then surely we must hold every American and Brit responsible for the violent actions of their leaders, actions which have led to vastly more civilian deaths than terrorists could ever lay claim to. Actually, there'd be more cause to hold Americans and Brits responsible than all muslims; after all, Americans and Brits *chose* their leaders; the average muslim never voted for anyone to fly a plane into a building.

The Western media and many politicians of many persuasions can delude themselves and their subjects/voters into thinking otherwise, but any fool can pick up a quran and read for himself what this death cult is all about. Mo the warmonger paedophile is considered as the prophet of allah and the the most perfect man who ever lived by at least the majority of muslims who all strive to be just like him. Anyone who criticisers Mo or islam in any way is at risk of starting a riot. Yet, criticism of xtianity or Jeebus is just laughed off or ignored by most xtians. These are facts.

Except the bible is not particularly less violent than the quran. So either it doesn't matter whether muslims and christians have different responses and behaviors since the core of their religions are just as fucked up; or it doesn't matter what the quran says since its muslim's behavior that matters. You can't put forth both arguments, since either one makes the other obsolete.

And of course it is *not* a fact that christians and muslims respond in particularly different ways to criticism. You're unfairly comparing christians from developed countries with muslims from underdeveloped countries. Poverty and lack of proper education will cause groups to respond in very different ways to criticism. What you want to do is compare christians and muslims that exist in similar circumstances; and what we see there is that the gap becomes a lot smaller. We have quite a lot of muslims here in my country, and people have been arguing against it in a variety of severely unkind ways for decades; yet that fact in itself hasn't ever caused any riots. Similarly, when you criticize christianity in many poor and uneducated African countries, you can expect a mob to pay you a visit.

 

[Togo]

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.

There is now a seperate thread dedicated to this. It's proving very difficult to seperate 'soldier' from 'terrorist'.

What we can conclude is that the data cited is largely worthless, as Jokodo pointed out. A big of digging (i.e. reading the report) shows that the data is based on a list of organisations declared as terrorist by the US state department, which suggests it specialises in groups conducting attacks on the US, and ignores groups supporting the US.

Can anyone find a better source?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There is now a seperate thread dedicated to this. It's proving very difficult to seperate 'soldier' from 'terrorist'.

Only to those who defend terrorism. Normally it's quite clear.

 

[laughing dog]

There is now a seperate thread dedicated to this. It's proving very difficult to seperate 'soldier' from 'terrorist'.

Only to those who defend terrorism. Normally it's quite clear.

Are the Israeli settlers who attack Palestinian civilians terrorists?

 

[bilby]

Try to modify it???

FFS. So the argument is boiling down to "most"or "nearly all" . Pray tell, what's the farking huge difference????

The difference is that by claiming that 'Nearly all terrorists are Muslims' you are implying that terrorism is uniquely a problem of Islam, and that therefore attacks on Islam are justifiable in the name of preventing terrorism.

You are attempting to denigrate a huge number of people by assigning to them vicarious responsibility for ALL terrorism; but terrorism is not uniquely the province of any one group, sect, or religion. Terrorism is universally applied as a solution by people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are oppressed, and who do not have the military clout to do anything else about it.

It is counter-productive; By trying to make out that Islam is somehow especially worse than any other religious belief, you create the very problem that you claim to despise. So either saying that 'Almost all terrorists are Muslims' is just you being really, really, stupid; or it is a deliberate attempt by you to create a divide between Islam and the rest of the world.

I will oppose you in either case.

 

[bilby]

Such short memories. The London bombings and the over 700 victims with 52 dead are so easily forgotten even after the 9/11 atrocities where there were over 3000 deaths with ten times that number of injured, all in the name of the religion of peace. That some have the audacity to defend this death cult is reprehensible to say the least, but not surprising seeing where it's coming from!!!!

Who the fuck has forgotten these attacks?

Don't you fucking DARE play that insulting and reprehensible game with me. I have forgotten NOTHING.

I do not have to share your insane belief that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of the London bombers, or the 9/11 hijackers, in order to condemn these atrocities. I will NOT condemn a billion people on the basis of the actions of a dozen nutters. And I will thank you not to insult me for having the temerity to not join your crusade either - it is stupid, irresponsible and counter-productive, and I will fight against it before I will fight for it.

 

[bilby]

The war against terrorism that George W went to pains to point out "wasn't a war against islam" really is a war against islam.

If true, and it probably is, than this is reprehensible. It is not something we should be applauding.

The Western media and many politicians of many persuasions can delude themselves and their subjects/voters into thinking otherwise, but any fool can pick up a quran and read for himself what this death cult is all about. Mo the warmonger paedophile is considered as the prophet of allah and the the most perfect man who ever lived by at least the majority of muslims who all strive to be just like him. Anyone who criticisers Mo or islam in any way is at risk of starting a riot. Yet, criticism of xtianity or Jeebus is just laughed off or ignored by most xtians. These are facts.

You really need to learn the definition of 'fact', because the word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

If 'any fool' can learn the thoughts and feelings of 'at least the majority' of the followers of a religion from simply reading their scripture, then it is clear that 'any fool' can pick up a bible and read for himself what that death cult is about too. Jehova is a war god, and demands that his followers kill, rape and plunder.

There are plenty of Christians now, and throughout history - both recent and ancient - who have happily killed people for not being sufficiently respectful of their stupidity. None of this abhorrent behaviour is unique to Islam, and claiming that it is is pouring petrol on the fire. You need to stop doing that, lest you be as guilty as all the others who act to encourage terrorism.

 

[bilby]

There is now a seperate thread dedicated to this. It's proving very difficult to seperate 'soldier' from 'terrorist'.

Only to those who defend terrorism. Normally it's quite clear.

Only insofar as one defines 'terrorist' in such a way as to exclude those with whose political aims we largely agree.

 

[angelo]

If true, and it probably is, than this is reprehensible. It is not something we should be applauding.

The Western media and many politicians of many persuasions can delude themselves and their subjects/voters into thinking otherwise, but any fool can pick up a quran and read for himself what this death cult is all about. Mo the warmonger paedophile is considered as the prophet of allah and the the most perfect man who ever lived by at least the majority of muslims who all strive to be just like him. Anyone who criticisers Mo or islam in any way is at risk of starting a riot. Yet, criticism of xtianity or Jeebus is just laughed off or ignored by most xtians. These are facts.

You really need to learn the definition of 'fact', because the word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

If 'any fool' can learn the thoughts and feelings of 'at least the majority' of the followers of a religion from simply reading their scripture, then it is clear that 'any fool' can pick up a bible and read for himself what that death cult is about too. Jehova is a war god, and demands that his followers kill, rape and plunder.

There are plenty of Christians now, and throughout history - both recent and ancient - who have happily killed people for not being sufficiently respectful of their stupidity. None of this abhorrent behaviour is unique to Islam, and claiming that it is is pouring petrol on the fire. You need to stop doing that, lest you be as guilty as all the others who act to encourage terrorism.

The difference is as I've pointed out before is that xtians have been dragged into modernity, they no longer kill for Jehovah as in Genesis describes. While xtianity was moving forward towards the 20th century it passe islam as it was heading the other way. and this.............

Reprehensible as such acts were; they were not committed in a vacuum but rather the logical result of western foreign policy.

I'm sick to death of this self hatred coming from the left. Western foreign policy has fuck all to do with the way these islamic countries are/have been run. They are the way they are because of corruption and for refusing to move ahead into the 21sy century. When was the last time an Arab won a Nobel Prize for anything?

 

[angelo]

The day muslims separate church from state is the day they MAY start moving forward and joining modern society.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The day muslims separate church from state is the day they MAY start moving forward and joining modern society.

Muslims can't separate church from state as a single unit since they are not a single nationality.

Turkey has a secular government with church/state separation. They are also democratic. So obviously it is possible.

There are plenty of solid sociological theories to explain why many predominantly muslim countries suffer from fascist governments, tribalism and corruption. The most likely reason being their late shift from a predominantly agrarian economy to a predominantly industrial economy. Turkey did this almost the same time as central Europe, and has, in the 20th century, matched their church/state type religious relationship.

The fact that fascist rulers have abused Islam in order to keep themselves in power has been mirrored by plenty of Christian dictators and kings throughout history. It is not unique to Islamic rulers.

 

[angelo]

The day muslims separate church from state is the day they MAY start moving forward and joining modern society.

Muslims can't separate church from state as a single unit since they are not a single nationality.

Turkey has a secular government with church/state separation. They are also democratic. So obviously it is possible.

There are plenty of solid sociological theories to explain why many predominantly muslim countries suffer from fascist governments, tribalism and corruption. The most likely reason being their late shift from a predominantly agrarian economy to a predominantly industrial economy. Turkey did this almost the same time as central Europe, and has, in the 20th century, matched their church/state type religious relationship.

The fact that fascist rulers have abused Islam in order to keep themselves in power has been mirrored by plenty of Christian dictators and kings throughout history. It is not unique to Islamic rulers.

The point I'm trying to convey is that true, xtian dictators and kings have been corrupt and kept society back for their own ends. Apart from some South American banana republics that still have corrupt governments and therefore in the third world category, most of the xtian world separated church and state many decades ago and as a result are reaping the benefits of doing so by advancing to the 21st century. As for Turkey, they are sinking into the same quagmire as other muslim countries because of their nut job PM and now President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who is determined to make it an islamic state.