Berzerker
Deity
Well, yeah, a Muslim is running around slaughtering the infidels in the name of Allah and the rest of us figure religion is their motivation.
The Non-Muslim Terrorists Are Going To Get You If You Don't Watch Out!
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
Well, yeah, a Muslim is running around slaughtering the infidels in the name of Allah and the rest of us figure religion is their motivation.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
If a Christian did the same thing "running around slaughtering" Jews or Muslims "in the name of" Christ, would it likely be called mental illness or an act of terrorism?
When a Muslim murders someone, it is almost immediately known he is a Muslim because that information is released. When a Christian or a Jew murders even a group of people, how often is that fact even mentioned? How many talking heads appear on cable news debating whether or not it might have been an act of terrorism? How often are the authorities quoted on whether it might be terrorism or not?
What if the Muslim killer doesn't mention religion at all? Would you still presume it was terrorism?
I don't remember the Boston bombers claiming they were doing it "in the name of Allah".
Nor do I remember the "terrorists" in Libya killing our ambassador that way either? But that certainly didn't stop numerous Republican congressmen from trying to lynch Hillary Clinton every chance they got for nearly 3 years now, merely because one of her aides suggested it might not have been due to terrorism based on reports she had received.
Has any representative of the US government ever stated that even one of the indiscriminate bombings in Gaza might have been an act of terrorism? That the IDF had to have known know that dozens of innocent women and children would be executed based on the well known blast radius of their bombs? That these heinous acts of murder are no more "collateral damage" than the thousands of civilians killed on 9/11 were?
What about the over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq, many of them by US soldiers under the same conditions?
Was the My Lai massacre and dozens of other similar incidents in Korea and Vietnam ever called acts of terrorism?
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." William Blum
How about all the civilians killed by Blackwater, in only one horrific case finally considered to be murder years later after being dismissed by our courts numerous times? Or Staff Sgt. Robert Bales who murdered 16 Afghan civilians? Or the Haditha massacre where a group of 6 US Marines peremptorily murdered 24 Iraqi civilians? Mental illness, terrorism, or even completely ignored, excused, and/or dismissed?
Who gets called a terrorist, who gets called mentally ill, and who gets called neither is largely arbitrary. That is unless it was a Muslim. Then it has to be definitely shown that it couldn't possibly have been an act of terrorism after an extensive investigation.
When a Muslim murders someone, it is almost immediately known he is a Muslim because that information is released. When a Christian or a Jew murders even a group of people, how often is that fact even mentioned? How many talking heads appear on cable news debating whether or not it might have been an act of terrorism? How often are the authorities quoted on whether it might be terrorism or not?
What if the Muslim killer doesn't mention religion at all? Would you still presume it was terrorism?
I don't remember the Boston bombers claiming they were doing it "in the name of Allah".
Nor do I remember the "terrorists" in Libya killing our ambassador that way either? But that certainly didn't stop numerous Republican congressmen from trying to lynch Hillary Clinton every chance they got for nearly 3 years now, merely because one of her aides suggested it might not have been due to terrorism based on reports she had received.
Has any representative of the US government ever stated that even one of the indiscriminate bombings in Gaza might have been an act of terrorism? That the IDF had to have known know that dozens of innocent women and children would be executed based on the well known blast radius of their bombs? That these heinous acts of murder are no more "collateral damage" than the thousands of civilians killed on 9/11 were?
What about the over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq, many of them by US soldiers under the same conditions?
Was the My Lai massacre and dozens of other similar incidents in Korea and Vietnam ever called acts of terrorism?
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." William Blum
How about all the civilians killed by Blackwater, in only one horrific case finally considered to be murder years later after being dismissed by our courts numerous times? Or Staff Sgt. Robert Bales who murdered 16 Afghan civilians? Or the Haditha massacre where a group of 6 US Marines peremptorily murdered 24 Iraqi civilians? Mental illness, terrorism, or even completely ignored, excused, and/or dismissed?
Who gets called a terrorist, who gets called mentally ill, and who gets called neither is largely arbitrary. That is unless it was a Muslim. Then it has to be definitely shown that it couldn't possibly have been an act of terrorism after an extensive investigation.
Berzerker
Deity
The media exposed Tim McVeigh's associations with right wing Christians and the anti-abortion bombers are almost always identified as Christians.
I dont have to presume, they aint shy about letting everyone know their motives, but if they dont have a stated motive then I'd wait for more information.
Are you saying they weren't motivated by their religion? Of course they committed their crimes in the name of Allah, the kid repeatedly referenced his deity while apologizing in court.
How would you know?
The rest of your post is a rambling laundry list of events unrelated to what I said.
Ok, let's sum this up. 74 people have been killed in terror attacks since 9/11. It's of course very convenient to start this statistic after 9/11. Like, you know, the 3,000 people who were killed by Islamic terror, we've talked about this so often, let's just leave them out of the equasion for no reason... bringing them in would just hurt my agenda...
Whatever, let's go along with it. So, according to your numbers, 26 of the 74 people were killed by Muslim terror after 9/11. That is roughly 35 percent. So most terror, as in more than 50 percent, is caused by non-Muslims. I love how you make this distinction "Muslim - non-Muslim" and lump the latter all together into one category. As if this was one coherent group. The Non-Muslims United or something. While the article you provide is rather vague, the 35 percent most likely make up the most amount of deaths caused by any one of the groups that commit acts of terror. But it gets better.
This statistic on its own is meaningless. For the numbers to have any predictive value, we need to compare them to the percentage of the total population. There are 2,6 million Muslims living in America. That is about 0,8 percent of the population. Muslims should have caused 0,8 percent of the deaths caused by terror. Calculating from the 74 total, that's about half a death. But Muslims have been responsible for 26 deaths. So they are causing 50 times more deaths than they should. So yeah, the conclusion has to be that the threat is totally overblown...
But it gets better still.
We are talking, of course, only about terror attacks which have occured in the US. As if it was legit to pick a random country to draw conclusions about Muslim terror. Why not pick Greenland? 0 percent of terror attacks are committed by Muslims in Greenland. There are not even any Muslims living there. So that means Muslim terror must be overblown, right?
Let's ignore the fact that for years, 90 percent of terror attacks worldwide have been committed by Muslims. Approximately 98 percent of deaths in these terror attacks are caused by Muslims. Virtually every day somewhere in the world some Muslim blows himself up and kills several people. Globally speaking, terrorism is almost entirely a Muslim problem. But no, the whole issue must be overblown. Why exactly? Because the Muslims in America, the 0,8 percent of the population, are not causing 51 percent of terror-related deaths, but only 35? Oh well then, I am so relieved.
I am used to dealing with meaningless arguments when discussing this topic. But when the conclusions that follow from the author's arguments are the exact opposite as what he intended, that's when it gets precious. And that's when it's most fun to expose this white-guilt-riddled, hyper-politically correct nonsense.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Dealing with, making, same difference.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It's nice to see that you are applying your expertise and experience in the field of nonsense by nonsensically categorizing it.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Citation accepted, although "virtually every other day" might have been more accurate. Either way, it doesn't seem that your initial statement was sensationalist, which is what it seemed to me initially.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
There was one today. Actually two
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33287978
And
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33284937
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
As opposed to doing neither?
The sheer incidence of these even in areas with minimal foreign influence does remove some credence to pinning blame entirely or primarily on the west.
The sheer lack of them in Western countries shows that there is something going on rather than mere religion.
You could tell something was fishy when they switched from chemical weapons to nuclear weapons so interchangeably in the WMD propaganda, and the piecemeal evidence that was released was heavily disputed (i.e. the aluminum tubes, the yellow cake is a lie, etc.). They were just searching for any pretense to attack.
Don't engage, he's writing his manifesto.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Of course close to 200 deaths in close to 24 hours is just a statistic and nothing to worry about.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
No disagreement there. Religion is being wielded as a tool, evidence for it as a root cause is far more shaky.
True, but also a small piece of the "this doesn't add up...". Unless of course you're reconciling it to your last sentence. Then it adds up, but that's still just a small piece.
Unless Israel is inflicting the deaths.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Isn't Irsel bad for attack and killing all those terrorists who a firing behind civilians? 
Isn't Irsel bad for attack and killing all those terrorists who a firing behind civilians?
Israel is bad for killing the civilians.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Well considering I turned 18 in 2002 and hadn't cast a single vote yet, pretty sure my opinions on the war weren't fully formed and didn't matter one bit.
Plus the Iraq resolution passed with 70% house approval and ~75% senate approval. But go ahead, tell them all I told you so. Dems who voted to pass it include Kerry, Clinton, Biden and Harry Reid. Maybe you should write them first.
I am just speaking for myself and several liberals on the forum. Just search thread title "Iraq" in ascending order for plenty that had the foresight.
Similar threads
- Poll
