Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The blood trail of Islam in Europe watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    Lazy research. Population size is much more of a decisive factor than the religious population.

    Furthermore, all the countries you listed aren't solely suffering from Islamic fueled violence. You are more interested in spreading a hate message akin to what a militant in Syria would wish for.

    The Terrorist acts you have anchored over each country, one of them was a PLOT. Desperate mockery. Look into FBI records or a crime unit's record and you will see a multitude of foiled attempts to cause political disruption.

    Lastly, some of the tragedies listed... they are more 10 years old?! Oh and how about you report that Muslim who stole something from that grocery store in that corner in Europe?

    Terrorism has no religion. You like to terrorize, you will want follow it. What comes in the way are just attributes to describe terrorism. A much better conclusion from your "research" would be anyone with 2 hands and legs who can travel are dangerous.
    It's perfectly acceptable to study the growth and trend of global Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

    Population size will help make the hypothesis clearer and point out any statistical faults.

    The evidence certainly points to some link but is ambiguously precisely he cause it's am complex issue with many factors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What about western intervention in the Middle East. That's also part of the problem
    I would say yes, it is indeed a factor in the violence in the middle east, it is also 'Whataboutery' (which I predicted some users would resort to earlier on in the thread)

    (Original post by string56)
    'Yeah but....' (Resorts to Whataboutery and Tu Quoque fallacy)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Countries with no attacks are relatively poorer and those people want to go to the countries where there are attacks. Diversity works is all i get from this.
    You can be diverse whilst not accepting backward 7th century ideologies into your country. I'm happy for Mexicans, Romanians, Finnish, Icelandic or Samoan people to come to Europe but they should either adapt to our way of life or act upon their right to leave. Nobody is going to cry over them leaving to go live in a backward Muslim country full of beheadings, hands being cut off, women being treated like dogs and children being brainwashed by some pathetic 7th century ideology that deserves no place in any modern country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    If Muslims have left a blood trail in Europe, The West have left an ocean of blood in the Middle East.
    I think you will find that extremist Muslims have killed far more in the Middle East than the West.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    Countries with lower Muslim population

    *All of these countries have an Islamic population of less than 1% in relation to its total population.

    Poland - no serious attacks
    Latvia - no serious attacks
    Lithuania - no serious attacks
    Romania - no serious attacks
    Czech Republic - no serious attacks
    Slovakia - no serious attack
    Portugal - no serious attack
    Finland - no serious attack
    Iceland - no serious attack
    Hungary - no serious attack
    Armenia - no serious attack
    Malta - no serious attack
    I wonder what we'd find if you ran the numbers for the military expenditure of these countries in a middle eastern field of conflict...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    I wonder what we'd find if you ran the numbers for the military expenditure of these countries in a middle eastern field of conflict...
    I've already covered this. A lot of these countries have supported NATO involvement in the Middle East - a few have even provided troops, arms or money to help with aid.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    I've already covered this. A lot of these countries have supported NATO involvement in the Middle East - a few have even provided troops, arms or money to help with aid.
    But have you run the numbers? You seem convinced that the number of Muslims in a country is an indicator for how vulnerable that country is to attack, but maybe there is just as strong a correlation for amount spent on wars in the middle east and how vulnerable the country is.

    It would be interesting to find out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    No, its not. If that was the case then why aren't Romania, Poland the Czech Republic getting blown to bits? The problem is wherever there is a strong Muslim population the incidence rate of backward practices and terrorist attacks have increased. Generally, countries with less religious nonsense are much better off.
    Why are there larger muslim populations in some countries than others? Excluding France, because the reason for that is that the majority of Algerians were considered citizens of the French Republic for a time, and a huge number of people from the Southern Republic (now algeria) migrated to the North before the Algerian Independence Movement took root.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    But have you run the numbers? You seem convinced that the number of Muslims in a country is an indicator for how vulnerable that country is to attack, but maybe there is just as strong a correlation for amount spent on wars in the middle east and how vulnerable the country is.
    If you're talking about the pure financial aspect of support, no I have not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Why are there larger muslim populations in some countries than others? Excluding France, because the reason for that is that the majority of Algerians were considered citizens of the French Republic for a time, and a huge number of people from the Southern Republic (now algeria) migrated to the North before the Algerian Independence Movement took root.
    All of the other countries know the risks of Islam. Look at Hungary for example, they have had the threat of Islam present before during Empires and therefore they know what happens when you let a backward 7th century ideology get a grip on your nation. The Western countries do not know and think they know better, it will eventually be their own undoing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    If you're talking about the pure financial aspect of support, no I have not.
    The perhaps it's... ill advised to jump to conclusions about the motivations or modus operandi of terrorist organisations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    The perhaps it's... ill advised to jump to conclusions about the motivations or modus operandi of terrorist organisations.
    Still doesn't detract from the fact that the higher the population, the higher the risk. If the UK had a zero Muslim population then its not hard to work out that any attack would have to be external. Given that external attacks are less common due to being much more difficult to orchestrate and pull off (as with 9/11), then the risk factor is much lower. Everything is about risk aversion and lowering risk.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    Still doesn't detract from the fact that the higher the population, the higher the risk. If the UK had a zero Muslim population then its not hard to work out that any attack would have to be external. Given that external attacks are less common due to being much more difficult to orchestrate and pull off (as with 9/11), then the risk factor is much lower. Everything is about risk aversion and lowering risk.
    I think it's wildly unrealistic to even consider that as a possibility which makes the rest of your post sort of pointless. With that is mind and back to the original point - correlation does not equal causation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    I think it's wildly unrealistic to even consider that as a possibility which makes the rest of your post sort of pointless. With that is mind and back to the original point - correlation does not equal causation.
    It was a hypothetical, nobody suggested it was ever a realistic option. The point still remains, the higher the population, the higher the risk and incidence rate of attack - this is the common trend across Europe that cannot be refuted. I'll even put it in a graph for you and then try and refute it. There will be some results that stray away from that but the general trend will remain.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm the more protected a Muslim country is the less the "blood trail" in that country. E.g pakistan has nuclear weapons so it hasnt been attacked Iran is suspected of having nuclear weapons so hasnt been attacked (despite the fact the republican congress badly wants to), iraq did not have wmd so WAS attacked.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    If Muslims have left a blood trail in Europe, The West have left an ocean of blood in the Middle East.
    A rep isn't enough for this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    All of the other countries know the risks of Islam. Look at Hungary for example, they have had the threat of Islam present before during Empires and therefore they know what happens when you let a backward 7th century ideology get a grip on your nation. The Western countries do not know and think they know better, it will eventually be their own undoing.
    Do those countries have generally low rates of immigration, and are their GDPs lower than that of countries with more muslims and more immigrants?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nununu)
    Hmm the more protected a Muslim country is the less the "blood trail" in that country. E.g pakistan has nuclear weapons so it hasnt been attacked Iran is suspected of having nuclear weapons so hasnt been attacked (despite the fact the republican congress badly wants to), iraq did not have wmd so WAS attacked.
    World governments know Iran doesn't have nukes. That whole issue was to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear power because of the positive effect it would have on its regional and global influence, making it able to sell more hydrocarbons (and use less of it itself) and set up electricity deals with countries like Iraq.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fidus Achates)
    It was a hypothetical, nobody suggested it was ever a realistic option. The point still remains, the higher the population, the higher the risk and incidence rate of attack - this is the common trend across Europe that cannot be refuted. I'll even put it in a graph for you and then try and refute it. There will be some results that stray away from that but the general trend will remain.
    I'm not disputing it, I'm saying the is more than one factor involved. If you are old enough to have done your GCSEs then you'll know how to control an experiment by reducing extraneous variables. You don't seem to have done this with your hypothetical thought experiment and so I'm saying your conclusions don't carry much water.
    Would appreciate a graph though, that'd be cool. While you're there, could you do the 'military expenditure in the middle east vs terrorist attacks' graph as well? Big up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    A rather ambiguous statement really. Most conflict in the middle east is Sunni v Shia, extremism v moderate or tribalism. This has little to do with the west. Of course the west is at fault on some issues, but to simply to dismiss it all as the fault of the west is not only inaccurate, but wilful ignorance.
    Did I dismiss it all as the fault of the West ?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.