This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Is it Haram to do this?
- help - a level history cousework
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- CBSE to A-Level Equivalence
- University of Leeds Terrorism Module International Relations
- lse accounting and finance
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Girls Vs. Boys (Part 46)
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- LSE Accounting and finance
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Israel winning
- Warwick Undergraduate Global Excellence Scholarship
- Official: University of Exeter A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Korean at SOAS
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
94% of US and 98% of European terror attacks done by non-Muslims
Scroll to see replies
How convenient that these statistics also include those from many decades ago. After a little read through, they also seem to count disabling a few vehicles as a 'terror' act.
Sure, if you want to go by the definition, then any act with the aim to change something vaguely political is terrorism. But is breaking a farm's car to discourage eating meat terrorism? Not really. Killing people with bombs and guns is real terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2010s
Look here. Each year from 2013 has as many Islamist terror attacks as the years of 1980 - 2001, that's two decades of terror attacks every year for the last 3 years.
I'm not blaming the people, I'm blaming their barbaric religion.
Sure, if you want to go by the definition, then any act with the aim to change something vaguely political is terrorism. But is breaking a farm's car to discourage eating meat terrorism? Not really. Killing people with bombs and guns is real terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2010s
Look here. Each year from 2013 has as many Islamist terror attacks as the years of 1980 - 2001, that's two decades of terror attacks every year for the last 3 years.
I'm not blaming the people, I'm blaming their barbaric religion.
Original post by dumbsituation123
hardly any Muslims I know are 'against every other religion', people way too often confuse the radical preachers who have loud voices with the average Muslim
I said 'anti-every other religion in the sense that they don't think they're true and would not like them to increase in influence at the expense of Islam.'
Do the Muslims you know not think that a) Islam is true and b) they would like more for people to become Muslims than they would Muslims becoming adherents of a different religion? I would be very surprised if they don't agree with at least one of those propositions.
The point is that this accusation that 'oh, you're so anti-Islam' is silly. It pretends that there is something wrong with being opposed to the teachings of Islam and that Muslims aren't themselves opposed to the teachings of other religions. Neither of which is true.
Original post by BigTraderBoi
So have non-Muslim extremists. The point I was trying to make was that Muslims are unfairly targeted for anti-terrorism policies and there is a lot of connections being made between Muslims and terrorism when it couldn't be further from the truth.
Except it was Muslim extremists that killed 130 people in Paris, 87 in Nice, 12 in Berlin, 32 in Brussels... So don't say that the connections are unfair if it was Muslim terrorists killing innocent people for political reasons.
Original post by BigTraderBoi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html
And yet people still blame Muslims when the vast majority of us are less likely to commit terror attacks than other groups. If the Islamophobes actually cared about stopping deaths rather than bashing Muslims they would talk about the threat of white-supremacist attacks instead!
And also, if you can blame an entire group of 1.6 billion people as terrorists, you can also label us as peacemakers since 5 of the last 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners have been Muslims.
Gives you something to think about. Love for all, hatred for none. Hope you guys all have a wonderful day.
And yet people still blame Muslims when the vast majority of us are less likely to commit terror attacks than other groups. If the Islamophobes actually cared about stopping deaths rather than bashing Muslims they would talk about the threat of white-supremacist attacks instead!
And also, if you can blame an entire group of 1.6 billion people as terrorists, you can also label us as peacemakers since 5 of the last 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners have been Muslims.
Gives you something to think about. Love for all, hatred for none. Hope you guys all have a wonderful day.
When you follow the links you see how flimsy the points are. When claiming Islamic terrorism is 4% or less of all terrorism in the USA and even less in Europe, there is not one definition of terrorism in any of the links he uses a citations. Hence we have no idea what the criteria are for terrorism. The fact that he has a cartoon depicting gang shootings and (police?) Shootings as though they are on a par show just how disingenuous the comparison is.
Whilst the links understandably refuse the show what the define as terrorism, one lets slip that there are 140,000 murders every year as though this in any way deflects from the threat and influence of Islamic terrorism. Since when were *normal* murders in anyway relevant to the threat of islamic terrorism, or what portion of muslims are extreme?!
The other points simply flow from assumptions that critics of islamic terrorism and the role muslims play, dont share. We dont extrapolate from the successful terrorist attacks that the global muslim population are thus terrorists. That's a strawman. Rather, we use opinion polls to show just how widespread the extreme views which provide the foundation and fertile environment for Islamic terrorism, are.
The last point follows the same fallacies as the earlier ones. As though *other* threats are more dangerous, mean anything for the threat of islamic terrorism! That i'm more likely to die in a car crash means little to highlighting the *growing* threat of islamic terrorism and showing the factors which influence it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hydeman
I said 'anti-every other religion in the sense that they don't think they're true and would not like them to increase in influence at the expense of Islam.'
Do the Muslims you know not think that a) Islam is true and b) they would like more for people to become Muslims than they would Muslims becoming adherents of a different religion? I would be very surprised if they don't agree with at least one of those propositions.
The point is that this accusation that 'oh, you're so anti-Islam' is silly. It pretends that there is something wrong with being opposed to the teachings of Islam and that Muslims aren't themselves opposed to the teachings of other religions. Neither of which is true.
Do the Muslims you know not think that a) Islam is true and b) they would like more for people to become Muslims than they would Muslims becoming adherents of a different religion? I would be very surprised if they don't agree with at least one of those propositions.
The point is that this accusation that 'oh, you're so anti-Islam' is silly. It pretends that there is something wrong with being opposed to the teachings of Islam and that Muslims aren't themselves opposed to the teachings of other religions. Neither of which is true.
You're killing it today Hydeman. I would give you rep, but I have done so already.
Well put.
this is ******** - do you actually believe in this drivel? I'm baffled. is this based on a no true scotsman fallacy or something? whereby only peaceful muslims can be classed as "muslims" for this study? probably. I have no idea what else would cause such an article to be so googly eyed.
Keep in mind, what the USA in particular considers "terrorism" is broad to say the least. Even "tree spiking" (a sabotage technique used by radical environmentalists, in which large nails are hammered into the bases trees with the intention of blunting chainsaws and detering logging), can be recorded as a terrorist act. Not exactly in the same league as driving a truck through a busy Christmas market.
Original post by Hydeman
I said 'anti-every other religion in the sense that they don't think they're true and would not like them to increase in influence at the expense of Islam.'
Do the Muslims you know not think that a) Islam is true and b) they would like more for people to become Muslims than they would Muslims becoming adherents of a different religion? I would be very surprised if they don't agree with at least one of those propositions.
The point is that this accusation that 'oh, you're so anti-Islam' is silly. It pretends that there is something wrong with being opposed to the teachings of Islam and that Muslims aren't themselves opposed to the teachings of other religions. Neither of which is true.
Do the Muslims you know not think that a) Islam is true and b) they would like more for people to become Muslims than they would Muslims becoming adherents of a different religion? I would be very surprised if they don't agree with at least one of those propositions.
The point is that this accusation that 'oh, you're so anti-Islam' is silly. It pretends that there is something wrong with being opposed to the teachings of Islam and that Muslims aren't themselves opposed to the teachings of other religions. Neither of which is true.
is that not true for virtually all religions though?
Original post by dumbsituation123
is that not true for virtually all religions though?
It is, yes. All Abrahamic ones anyway.
Enough people have highlighted the dishonest definitions of terrorist and the manipulation of statistics used. It's undeniable that the majority of current terrorism is inspired by Islam, it's a real problem and denying it isn't going to make it go away.
No no, why did you post this? We can't have the far & alt-right members of this forum knowing that they're heavily prejudiced and wrong, could you just imagine their reactions! Won't someone please think of the alt-right!!!
To seriously answer the thread though, as already pointed out, there are issues with the dates of those statistics and how they're reported. Though I do obviously agree with the general point trying to be conveyed that, surprisingly, non-muslims are capable of committing terror attacks weird huh.
To seriously answer the thread though, as already pointed out, there are issues with the dates of those statistics and how they're reported. Though I do obviously agree with the general point trying to be conveyed that, surprisingly, non-muslims are capable of committing terror attacks weird huh.
(edited 7 years ago)
A lot of these kind of stats are diluted by the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are non-lethal, and include all kinds of political violence - animal rights and abortion type stuff. If you count only lethal terror acts, I would be confident that currently the majority are rooted in Islamic fundamentalism.
If you really want to drill down the data, most terrorist groups worldwide only last a few weeks and carry out one attack that doesn't harm anyone.
If you really want to drill down the data, most terrorist groups worldwide only last a few weeks and carry out one attack that doesn't harm anyone.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
It's quite shocking that OP got 10 reps for his absurd comment.
ISOC votes.
Original post by dumbsituation123
Exactly this.
Do people actually think these terrorists kill for their religion? No. Their murderous atrocities ALWAYS come from political instability / dispute, from conflict, from western influence in Middle Eastern countries. As much as I despise all forms of religion, Muslims don't just suddenly snap and decide to kill westerners because of their faith, they are usually politicised into it by things like IS or by the Syrian war, or the Arab spring...
I don't remember the bataclan attackers being reported to say that they did it for their faith, but rather they talked about Francois Hollande and his bombing of IS in Syria.
Do people actually think these terrorists kill for their religion? No. Their murderous atrocities ALWAYS come from political instability / dispute, from conflict, from western influence in Middle Eastern countries. As much as I despise all forms of religion, Muslims don't just suddenly snap and decide to kill westerners because of their faith, they are usually politicised into it by things like IS or by the Syrian war, or the Arab spring...
I don't remember the bataclan attackers being reported to say that they did it for their faith, but rather they talked about Francois Hollande and his bombing of IS in Syria.
They do kill for their religion.The bataclan attackers attacked a place which they viewed as sinful.Western scantily clad people having fun with the opposite sex drinking alcohol,that's all forbidden in Islam.Omar Mateen attacked a gay nightclub in Florida,being gay is sinful in Islam.The Berlin attacker attacked a Christmas market which Isis view as a Christian celebration.They view Christians as sinful.Terrorists attacked the Charlie hebdo magazine in France because they published pictures of the prophet Mohammed which they regard as blasphemous.Political disputes do contribute but religion is also a large factor.To say terrorism is nothing to do with Islam is wrong,it has everything to do with it.
Original post by Robby2312
They do kill for their religion.The bataclan attackers attacked a place which they viewed as sinful.Western scantily clad people having fun with the opposite sex drinking alcohol,that's all forbidden in Islam.Omar Mateen attacked a gay nightclub in Florida,being gay is sinful in Islam.The Berlin attacker attacked a Christmas market which Isis view as a Christian celebration.They view Christians as sinful.Terrorists attacked the Charlie hebdo magazine in France because they published pictures of the prophet Mohammed which they regard as blasphemous.Political disputes do contribute but religion is also a large factor.To say terrorism is nothing to do with Islam is wrong,it has everything to do with it.
No, they did it in retaliation to airstrikes on IS by France.
No airstrikes, no attack. Perhaps the symbolism of their choice of 'venue' was to do with Islam vs Western culture, but the attack was due to a political cause, and not a handful of Muslims suddenly deciding to help their religion.
:massivefacepalm:Original post by Josb
Yeah, people dislike Islam because of the media.
It's quite silly really. 'The media' only exists as a figure of speech; it's not a real, unitary entity. There are only individual news outlets (or groups of affiliated outlets, e.g. Murdoch's news empire), all of whom have their own attitude to Islam and Muslims, as they do on any issue - there's no central office somewhere deciding the editorial policy for all of them.
It's true that the Express and the Sun are biased against Muslims and just plain boneheaded, but what about the Guardian? The Independent? The Huffington Post? It's difficult to argue that any of these are biased against Islam and/or Muslims. The latter two especially are often engaged in the same mind-bending disingenuity as Breitbart or Fox News...
They manage this by being very liberal with the facts, they take the statistics looking well before Islamic terror became a major thing (they look back decades when Islamic terror has only really been prevalent this century, particularly the last few years), I imagine they're also fairly liberal with what counts as a terrorist attack.
Further they don't look at casualties, Islamic terror is very different to other sources. The priority for Islamic terror is casualties, doesn't matter whether they live or die they just want high casualty figures, other forms of terror are more interested in the fear side; for instance the IRA weren't so interested in killing or wounding people, assassinations aside, they were more interested in instilling the fear of a potential attack in the population.
Also you can tell they're very liberal with "terrorism" because the number of Islamic based terrorism and the percentages given lead to a need for very high total terrorist attack figures. For is tan, with the 98% Europe figure if we just look at the attacks in the last few years we need HUNDREDS in total over the study period to be able to get to Islam only being 2% (given I can think of 4 off the top of my head drunk we need 200 minimum) which then comes back to the study period. I mean we could go back to 1987BC, but that's not particularly relevant.
Once again the Islamist apologieats are being, at best liberal with the truth, and far more likely outright lying.The fact 9/11 killed more than pretty !much every other terrorist incident in the US combojed kinda proves the point.
Further they don't look at casualties, Islamic terror is very different to other sources. The priority for Islamic terror is casualties, doesn't matter whether they live or die they just want high casualty figures, other forms of terror are more interested in the fear side; for instance the IRA weren't so interested in killing or wounding people, assassinations aside, they were more interested in instilling the fear of a potential attack in the population.
Also you can tell they're very liberal with "terrorism" because the number of Islamic based terrorism and the percentages given lead to a need for very high total terrorist attack figures. For is tan, with the 98% Europe figure if we just look at the attacks in the last few years we need HUNDREDS in total over the study period to be able to get to Islam only being 2% (given I can think of 4 off the top of my head drunk we need 200 minimum) which then comes back to the study period. I mean we could go back to 1987BC, but that's not particularly relevant.
Once again the Islamist apologieats are being, at best liberal with the truth, and far more likely outright lying.The fact 9/11 killed more than pretty !much every other terrorist incident in the US combojed kinda proves the point.
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Is it Haram to do this?
- help - a level history cousework
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- CBSE to A-Level Equivalence
- University of Leeds Terrorism Module International Relations
- lse accounting and finance
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Girls Vs. Boys (Part 46)
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- LSE Accounting and finance
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Israel winning
- Warwick Undergraduate Global Excellence Scholarship
- Official: University of Exeter A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Korean at SOAS
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
