"....except the 99.6% who aren't"

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrori sm-in-europe/

"Islamophobes have been popularizing the claim that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims." Despite this idea becoming axiomatic in some circles, it is quite simply not factual. In my previous article entitled "All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't", I used official FBI records to show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists. The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

But what about across the pond? The data gathered by Europol strengthens my argument even further. (hat tip: Koppe) Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. On their official website, you can access the reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009. (If anyone can find the reports from earlier than that, please let me know so we can include those as well.)

The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2007 to 2009 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Here are the official tables provided in the reports..."

Well I guess its a stereotype because Islamic attacks are more popular and known more, but otherwise Extremists Jews and separatist groups are the ones you should look out for.

Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups.

Quick, get this to Glen Beck and BIll O'Reiley, they need to turn this into a crazy talking point!

What aboot American terrorism, y'all havn't converted overnight have you? Last time I heard y'all were on some sort of christian crusade in the middle east again...

At 12/11/10 10:03 PM, Jon-86 wrote: What aboot American terrorism, y'all havn't converted overnight have you? Last time I heard y'all were on some sort of christian crusade in the middle east again...

Dangit, didn't you get the point? We're only over there because all terrorists are Muslim!

At 12/11/10 10:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Dangit, didn't you get the point? We're only over there because all terrorists are Muslim!

I thought y'all were bringing democracy to the middle-east?

Wait a second wasn't it the hunt for WMDs?

No thats not right it was to catch that Osama guy...

Hell the excuses changes more times that lady gagas cloths :P

At 12/11/10 10:03 PM, Jon-86 wrote: What aboot American terrorism, y'all havn't converted overnight have you? Last time I heard y'all were on some sort of christian crusade in the middle east again...

Believe it or not, we have terrorist groups in America, that attack American landmarks and civilians without a care or even a good reason other than to see people die. The ELF, who bombed a lab in Michigan, because they were testing on animals, and the KKK, what with their history of lynchings, and the federal building bombing in Oklahoma City in '95. I know that none of those groups are Muslims, yet they get swept under the rug.

That's a very interesting statistic and I find it great that people are becoming more aware of this. This reminds me of the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. I know that those guys were not members of the Taliban, but were they Muslims or if not, motivated by religion in some way? I had no idea that France had so many terrorists, it just goes to show the stereotype the French are weak is false.

At 12/11/10 11:08 PM, orangebomb wrote: Believe it or not, we have terrorist groups in America.

Is that not what you tend to call militias who are rebelling against their government? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time...." and all that jazz?

I'm talking about Americas external activities :D

At 12/12/10 09:26 AM, Ericho wrote: I know that those guys were not members of the Taliban, but were they Muslims or if not, motivated by religion in some way?

Could be that one or more or all of their family were killed for no reason and they want to take as many fuckers out with them as they exact revenge. An eye for an eye and for many people that's a reasonable way to settle things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bat tles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_t oll#Terrorist_attacks
Sort it by date, and see where most of the attacks occurred...

It's moronic, the way you've constructed your argument. By your figuring, one guy dying in an abortion clinic bombing is the same as suicide attack in Afghanistan that kills 30 people. Look at all the celebrated terrorist attacks in recent history, along with the number of people killed:

Madrid bombings (191): Muslims
London Subway bombings(52): Muslims
Uganda world cup bombings (74): Muslims
2008 Mumbai attacks (175): Muslims
2002 Bali bombings (202): Muslims
2006 Mumbai train bombings (209): Muslims
Superferry 14 sinking (116): Muslims
Jaipur Bombings (80): Muslims
I won't even mention the big one (2,971), or the attacks that have been perpetrated by Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan(untold thousands) over the past several years.

For you to sit there and belittle people who associate terrorist attacks with Muslims just because they cause the minority of all incidents is just plain stupid. Nearly all the most active and dangerous terrorist organizations in the world have one thing in common: they are made up of Muslims. It's a fact. I only say "nearly all" to exclude the Chechens and South American Cartels.

At 12/12/10 12:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bat tles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_t oll#Terrorist_attacks
Sort it by date, and see where most of the attacks occurred...

It's moronic, the way you've constructed your argument. By your figuring, one guy dying in an abortion clinic bombing is the same as suicide attack in Afghanistan that kills 30 people.

Except more people dying in your latter example, I don't really see the difference. Both are attacking civilians to cause fear. I mean, it's not like the one guy with a gun could kill all abortion doctors. He killed one to try to make the others scared of working. It's not like the Taliban terrorist could kill all westerners, but by killing 30 they are trying to scare the rest of us.

For you to sit there and belittle people who associate terrorist attacks with Muslims just because they cause the minority of all incidents is just plain stupid.

Are you seriously defending the guys who say "all terrorists are Muslim"? Because it seems to be so, as that's the main focus of the thread. Nobody is saying there aren't Muslim terrorists here, only that they aren't the only one.

Nearly all the most active and dangerous terrorist organizations in the world have one thing in common: they are made up of Muslims. It's a fact. I only say "nearly all" to exclude the Chechens and South American Cartels.

All the terrorists groups which are a danger to the US mayhaps, but across the world? fat chance.

At 12/12/10 12:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bat tles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_t oll#Terrorist_attacks
Sort it by date, and see where most of the attacks occurred...

It's moronic, the way you've constructed your argument. By your figuring, one guy dying in an abortion clinic bombing is the same as suicide attack in Afghanistan that kills 30 people. Look at all the celebrated terrorist attacks in recent history, along with the number of people killed:

Who are you talking too? I just quoted the article I linked too. Wow its ironic that you called me moronic! Even more that it rhymes!

It doesn't matter how many people die in a terrorist attack its that the perpetrator was evil enough to want to cause harm to people, using this logic the Bosnian Genocide was no big deal because the Holocaust was much greater. It shouldn't matter how many people die because capability does not equal how evil and twisted the terrorist groups are, consequently lots of people think the opposite apparently seeing how little attention is given to genocides these days. It should be pointed out that if all these groups had the same capability and resources that the Extremist groups have chances are that they would be as dangerous.

For you to sit there and belittle people who associate terrorist attacks with Muslims just because they cause the minority of all incidents is just plain stupid. Nearly all the most active and dangerous terrorist organizations in the world have one thing in common: they are made up of Muslims. It's a fact. I only say "nearly all" to exclude the Chechens and South American Cartels.

Chechens are Muslim.

Again, "dangerous"? That's capability not evil, not to mention separatist groups are also a huge threat you're underestimating (WWI was caused because of a separatist group for example).

If there's something to learn here its to read before you post. Also not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim.

At 12/11/10 10:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 12/11/10 10:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Dangit, didn't you get the point? We're only over there because all terrorists are Muslim!

I thought y'all were bringing democracy to the middle-east?

Wait a second wasn't it the hunt for WMDs?

No thats not right it was to catch that Osama guy...

Hell the excuses changes more times that lady gagas cloths :P

You brought up different reasons for different theatres of conflict. Iraq is not Afghanistan, they are two seperate conflicts despite how I keep hearing people talking about them like they are the same damn place.

At 12/12/10 01:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

Except more people dying in your latter example, I don't really see the difference.

I'm sorry, I thought we were dealing with reality, in which 30 people killed indisriminately is a hell of a lot more awful and worrisome than one person dying who's actually affiliated with the cause.

Are you seriously defending the guys who say "all terrorists are Muslim"? Because it seems to be so, as that's the main focus of the thread. Nobody is saying there aren't Muslim terrorists here, only that they aren't the only one.

Do you think he actually made the thread intending to debunk those people alone? He's using a strawman to draw other conclusions, probably that we shouldn't pay closer attention to Muslims at the airport or who may be acting suspiciously or some crap.
If I'm wrong, and he did make the topic just to attack some unidentified person who thinks Muslims commit 100% of terrorist attacks, then I can't understand why so many people would reply since it's such a stupid premise to try to knock down anyway.

Nearly all the most active and dangerous terrorist organizations in the world have one thing in common: they are made up of Muslims. It's a fact. I only say "nearly all" to exclude the Chechens and South American Cartels.

All the terrorists groups which are a danger to the US mayhaps, but across the world? fat chance.

You don't think so? Did you look at the link? Sort it by country and count how many times the US is listed as the victim. I count 6, including the beirut and cole bombings. Most of the rest took place in the Middle East and Russia.
In any case, I'm talking about terrorism on a global scale. The table indicates, unless someone disputes the numbers, that muslim terrorists by far have killed the most people and therefore pose the greatest threat.

At 12/12/10 01:27 PM, Warforger wrote: Who are you talking too? I just quoted the article I linked too. Wow its ironic that you called me moronic! Even more that it rhymes!

I'm talking to you, who is not just reporting the article like an observer, but is using it to put forth a position, just like you did in your last thread you mentioned.

It doesn't matter how many people die in a terrorist attack its that the perpetrator was evil enough to want to cause harm to people...

I'll say the same thing I did to Drakim: In reality, the terrorist groups that cause the most casualties are the most important and infamous ones. Downlplaying this fact by looking exclusively at the number of incidents misses the point completely.

Chechens are Muslim.

Good catch, you just strengthened by argument.

Again, "dangerous"? That's capability not evil, not to mention separatist groups are also a huge threat you're underestimating (WWI was caused because of a separatist group for example).

You're the only one talking about "evil" here. I could care less about who "wants" to be a terrorist or not. Also, WWI was not "caused" by the anarchist Princep in any meaningful sense. He simply created an incident that was exacerbated by underlying factors.
No historian looks at WWI and says, "Without Princep, there never would have been any war. "

how do you classify Muslim separatists or political groups composed of Muslims but who aren't acting "in the name of Islam"?

At 12/12/10 02:20 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how do you classify Muslim separatists or political groups composed of Muslims but who aren't acting "in the name of Islam"?

I don't think I have to. All we are talking about is the dominance of Muslim terrorists, including terrorists who happen to be Muslim.

At 12/12/10 02:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 12/12/10 01:27 PM, Warforger wrote: Who are you talking too? I just quoted the article I linked too. Wow its ironic that you called me moronic! Even more that it rhymes!

I'm talking to you, who is not just reporting the article like an observer, but is using it to put forth a position, just like you did in your last thread you mentioned.

Uh sure.

It doesn't matter how many people die in a terrorist attack its that the perpetrator was evil enough to want to cause harm to people...

I'll say the same thing I did to Drakim: In reality, the terrorist groups that cause the most casualties are the most important and infamous ones. Downlplaying this fact by looking exclusively at the number of incidents misses the point completely.

They're infamous, but casualty numbers only show capability, its like saying the Nazi's wouldn't be as evil or infamous if they only killed a thousand Jews.

Chechens are Muslim.

Good catch, you just strengthened by argument.

Uh who cares? You take this thing way too seriously, I swear to god you guys act like its a war or something as opposed to say a debate.

Again, "dangerous"? That's capability not evil, not to mention separatist groups are also a huge threat you're underestimating (WWI was caused because of a separatist group for example).

You're the only one talking about "evil" here. I could care less about who "wants" to be a terrorist or not.

Uhhh so what exactly are you saying? That Islamic terrorists have more capability thus Islam has as much to do with how many they've killed as opposed to say Jewish terrorists? My point is that Islam isn't anymore of a cause for terrorism then say Judaism or separatism, just a radical spin of something that doesn't ask for violence.

Also, WWI was not "caused" by the anarchist Princep in any meaningful sense. He simply created an incident that was exacerbated by underlying factors.
No historian looks at WWI and says, "Without Princep, there never would have been any war. "

Your right, however it was the excuse Austria was looking for, otherwise it would've waited longer.

At 12/12/10 01:28 PM, sinfulwolf wrote:

At 12/11/10 10:38 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Hell the excuses changes more times that lady gagas cloths :P

You brought up different reasons for different theatres of conflict. Iraq is not Afghanistan, they are two seperate conflicts despite how I keep hearing people talking about them like they are the same damn place.

Not the same place, but in the same place and that is the middle east.

Not all Muslims are Terrorists

Who cares if most terrorists aren't Muslims? The very reason that we are and should focus on Islamic extremism above all else is because it is an ideology with the capacity to spread, not like some pipe dream of some idiots who think that blowing up a testing facility is a victory for animal rights. They are an extension of Islamic resurgence and are thereby a very threat to sanity.

At 12/12/10 08:05 PM, KemCab wrote: Who cares if most terrorists aren't Muslims? The very reason that we are and should focus on Islamic extremism above all else is because it is an ideology with the capacity to spread, not like some pipe dream of some idiots who think that blowing up a testing facility is a victory for animal rights. They are an extension of Islamic resurgence and are thereby a very threat to sanity.

You're right, but the problem is that people blame Islam for the attacks, not say the corruption of the religion like what has happened to say Christianity in the past. And so they lead to bigoted claims. The fact that it took them a while to start terrorist attacks in the name of Islam just shows that it isn't true Islam.

At 12/12/10 02:10 PM, adrshepard wrote: Do you think he actually made the thread intending to debunk those people alone? He's using a strawman to draw other conclusions, probably that we shouldn't pay closer attention to Muslims at the airport or who may be acting suspiciously or some crap.
If I'm wrong, and he did make the topic just to attack some unidentified person who thinks Muslims commit 100% of terrorist attacks, then I can't understand why so many people would reply since it's such a stupid premise to try to knock down anyway.

I didn't read this part of the post since you weren't replying to my post but anyway

Hahahaha. Surely you see the flaw in this thought process right? I made this thread to point out a fact, it wasn't to attack anyone, the fact that you called me stupid right off the bat just demonstrates that you are taking this way too seriously. Also if you read what the article said rather then say hit post right away it isn't targeting people who say "All Muslims are Terrorists" rather "Nearly all Terrorists are Muslim"

But I guess every thread in the politics forum is to attack someone in the srs internet.

I agree with aspspaprepspregard.

It's PRETTY dishonest to go "see? 99.4% of attacks aren't by muslims!" if in reality 90% of deaths are caused by them ( or whatever the number is, I didn't count ).

At 12/12/10 08:22 PM, Warforger wrote:

You're right, but the problem is that people blame Islam for the attacks, not say the corruption of the religion like what has happened to say Christianity in the past.

Oh shut the hell up.
The first thing muslims ever did was wage war, that's how their religion STARTED and they've been violent ever since.

The modern world is what corrupted Islam into a peaceful religion. If you want to see actual Islam in action, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that's the REAL by-the-books Islam.

At 12/12/10 08:22 PM, Warforger wrote: You're right, but the problem is that people blame Islam for the attacks, not say the corruption of the religion like what has happened to say Christianity in the past. And so they lead to bigoted claims.

The only positive direction is the phasing out of religion, whether gradually or by force. Islam is no exception. What is fundamentally flawed about both Christianity and Islam is that they champion the slave morality (after all, 'Islam' is derived from the Arabic word for 'to submit') and they claim a monopoly to truth, for instance in the form of sharia law.

The fact that it took them a while to start terrorist attacks in the name of Islam just shows that it isn't true Islam.

Then what is true Islam, then? Isn't that ultimately up to interpretation?

People would have you believe that religions are all about love and respect and magical sunshine or whatever but all of it really is just a way to impose a form of cultural and ideological uniformity upon people. Does that mean that the people who preach or practice it are good or bad? -- No. All the Islamists are doing is using religion to achieve their political aims, but that's been common practice for centuries.

I want to take this opportunity to point out the truth that while not all assholes are terrorists, all terrorists are assholes.

At 12/12/10 09:46 PM, Vousielle wrote: I want to take this opportunity to point out the truth that while not all assholes are terrorists, all terrorists are assholes.

This distinction is a futile exercise in subjective thinking: basically, I'm referring to the analogy that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

A terrorist, ideally, should be a person who uses terror in order to get things done efficiently -- groups like the ELF, Al-Qaeda, separatist movements, etc., do not get anything done because they do not have popular support or the means to overthrow the existing order. They are essentially the political equivalent to a raving lunatic yelling at people in the street.

At 12/12/10 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: I agree with aspspaprepspregard.

It's PRETTY dishonest to go "see? 99.4% of attacks aren't by muslims!" if in reality 90% of deaths are caused by them ( or whatever the number is, I didn't count ).

And that makes Islam more or less evil? That point was that sure Muslim terrorists kill more, but that doesn't make them more evil as a result of Islam.

At 12/12/10 08:22 PM, Warforger wrote:

You're right, but the problem is that people blame Islam for the attacks, not say the corruption of the religion like what has happened to say Christianity in the past.

Oh shut the hell up.
The first thing muslims ever did was wage war, that's how their religion STARTED and they've been violent ever since.

No not "ever since" they've been violent since the 90's if you just count terrorist attacks.

The modern world is what corrupted Islam into a peaceful religion. If you want to see actual Islam in action, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that's the REAL by-the-books Islam.

Oh. Sorry if I didn't know you read the Koran and was a devout Muslim follower, but a couple lot of moderate Muslims who have read it and pray the demanded number of times according to the Koran (which most extremists or non-violent equivalent don't do) along with making it a vital part of their lives would have to disagree with you.

At 12/12/10 09:58 PM, KemCab wrote: A terrorist, ideally, should be a person who uses terror in order to get things done efficiently -- groups like the ELF, Al-Qaeda, separatist movements, etc., do not get anything done because they do not have popular support or the means to overthrow the existing order. They are essentially the political equivalent to a raving lunatic yelling at people in the street.

How is someone who condones the use of terrorist tactics, whether it be efficient or not, not an asshole?

I agree with Warforger.In fact this thread really opened my eyes.I thought extremist Muslims were the majority perpetrators in worldwide terrorism.

Also Poxpower Islam initially spread mainly through political and military successes against the weakened Byzantine and Sassanide empires who were so busy with slaughtering each other they didn't pay attention what was emerging south.They conquered the cities but didnt commit mass murder. they just said if you want to retain your original faith so be it but pay up(jizya tax) and you can be exempted from the military. whereas Muslims had to fight in the armies but didn't have to pay the taxes.Although you do have various Muslim leaders who used the tax in a derogatory way to suppress non Muslims.

At 12/12/10 10:48 PM, Warforger wrote: No not "ever since" they've been violent since the 90's if you just count terrorist attacks.

Here's something from Tamerlane's Wikipedia page for you:

"At this Court Amír Jahán Sháh and Amír Sulaimán Sháh, and other amírs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustán up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy's forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy's success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islám at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accordance with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the Tawáchís to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the gházís of Islám, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Mauláná Násiru-d dín 'Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives."

My earlier point is that all religion is a blight on humanity, not specifically just Islam, and although we can't wish religions away, we can at least prevent it from encroaching upon our lives.

At 12/12/10 10:48 PM, Warforger wrote:

That point was that sure Muslim terrorists kill more, but that doesn't make them more evil as a result of Islam.

Well it's debatable what percentage of those attacks are caused by the religion.
Certainly you can see how religion plays a role in convincing someone to blow themselves up to go to heaven and get a prize.

Islam is the "religion of peace" in that peace will be achieved once everyone on earth is a Muslim.

No not "ever since" they've been violent since the 90's if you just count terrorist attacks.

I certainly don't count just terrorist attacks.

but a couple lot of moderate Muslims

Who gives a fuck?
The law is in their books, just like it is in Christianity. Anyone with a head on their shoulders can plainly see that Christians just pick and choose the parts they want to follow depending on the culture they live in.
It's the same for Muslims. Here, they can't get Sharia law. They can't kill you for leaving the faith like they're supposed to according to their book. They can't stone their women and marry a harems and marry little girls.

That's all in their book and unlike Jesus, Muhammad is an actually historically supported character and we know what he did.
That guy is the role model of Islam. Maybe you should look up his life and see if it's such a great religion of peace.

It's importantly critical that you inspect the context of the situation during Muhammad's time.Here you have an individual who is trying to improve his fledgling communities status by helping them establish a presence in their communities while he is surrounded by hostile and armed Pagan tribes who consider this new society of Muslims a severe and detrimental affront to their traditions and beliefs.

So obviously like sensible leaders Muhammad goes on the defensive. The battles and conflicts that thus occurred from these clashes are definitely referenced and documented, but once again these elements only are a tiny fraction of what the Quran is about. They are merely historical events that serve as a type of consequence and lesson for Muslims and non Muslims that happen during times of war.