Muslims and terrorists

[magogian]

Yeah right, your posts have been insinuating that very idea from the get go.

Absolutely not. I completely disagree with that position.

 

[autry_denson]

Interesting discussion, I've only caught a few posts and I don't have great knowledge on the topic so let me just raise three questions that I think are necessary to think through:

1) Are Muslims responsible for a disproportionate share of terrorist acts? Seems like there's been some good evidence here, although my guess would be that the answer to this depends quite a bit on how an act of terrorism is defined and measured. Relatedly, are we comparing acts by Muslims to only other religions or to all other groups? In the US I doubt that Muslims are overrepresented relative to all other groups (i.e. relative not just to other religions, but to right-wing groups etc), but I could be wrong.

2) Is there some confounder that might be important to think about? i.e. if Muslims are overrepresented, is it because of their religion or some other third factor. Their status in unequal societies? The treatment of their religion? Their level of education as a group, or economic opportunity? Overrepresentation of Muslims as terrorists may not mean that the religion itself leads to higher levels of this activity.

3) What if we expanded the discussion beyond terrorism to include all violence, including state-sposored violence? If we do this then Muslim-generated violence is probably much lower than violence perpetrated by states that might be associated with other religions, like Israel for instance. From this perspective the presumed link between the religion and violence is on shakier ground, b/c it only applies to violence that does not arise from the state (which is a tiny share of all violence).

None of this refutes or supports the idea that the religion itself might be responsible for generating terrorism, but it's designed simply to get our thinking straight. If we want to discuss this question we have to define explicitly what we're talking about, think about evidence available, and consider different ways to interpret that evidence.

 

[magogian]

Interesting discussion, I've only caught a few posts and I don't have great knowledge on the topic so let me just raise three questions that I think are necessary to think through:

1) Are Muslims responsible for a disproportionate share of terrorist acts? Seems like there's been some good evidence here, although my guess would be that the answer to this depends quite a bit on how an act of terrorism is defined and measured. Relatedly, are we comparing acts by Muslims to only other religions or to all other groups? In the US I doubt that Muslims are overrepresented relative to all other groups (i.e. relative not just to other religions, but to right-wing groups etc), but I could be wrong.

2) Is there some confounder that might be important to think about? i.e. if Muslims are overrepresented, is it because of their religion or some other third factor. Their status in unequal societies? The treatment of their religion? Their level of education as a group, or economic opportunity? Overrepresentation of Muslims as terrorists may not mean that the religion itself leads to higher levels of this activity.

3) What if we expanded the discussion beyond terrorism to include all violence, including state-sposored violence? If we do this then Muslim-generated violence is probably much lower than violence perpetrated by states that might be associated with other religions, like Israel for instance. From this perspective the presumed link between the religion and violence is on shakier ground, b/c it only applies to violence that does not arise from the state (which is a tiny share of all violence).

None of this refutes or supports the idea that the religion itself might be responsible for generating terrorism, but it's designed simply to get our thinking straight. If we want to discuss this question we have to define explicitly what we're talking about, think about evidence available, and consider different ways to interpret that evidence.

All are interesting questions.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Good question. I'll check.

The requirements are fairly broad, but I think they are defensible: "These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta. We only include incidents of deadly violence that are reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty - as interpreted by the perpetrator. Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor.

We usually list only attacks resulting in loss of life (with a handful of exceptions). In several cases, the deaths are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in later days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.

We usually don't include incidents related to combat, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless it involves particularly heinous terror tactics, such as suicide bombings or attacks on troops sleeping in their barracks or providing medical care to the local population.

We acknowledge that a handful of incidents on the list may not fit the traditional definition of 'terror attack.' A small portion, for example, are of honor killings - although we usually omit those in which the woman is killed by her husband, since this is often indistinguishable from a crime of passion (barring explicit circumstances). Our stance on honor killings is that the stabbing, shooting or strangling of a woman over "unIslamic" behavior constitutes Islamic terror."

How many of those crimes (not acts of terror, because the vast majority of them were not) occurred in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Morocco, Tunisia, or any other country without an active insurgency or civil war? Maybe 5%?

Attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan can be explained by a lot of factors, religion is not one of them.

 

[Jasher]

In the context of the criticism being made of Islam it was being associated with race...hence it was a racist comment.

There is only one race - the HUMAN race. It was you who took it out of context.

If it makes you feel better insert white supremist for racist champ.

Actually what would make me feel better is the following:

1.The Muslim Turks would end their denial of the Armenian Genocide.
2. Stop the persecution of Christians, Homosexuals, and Secularists in Muslim lands.
And the cherry on top would be 3. Kick the Sharia courts out of the United Kingdom.

While perusing the news and Taqiyya this morning I did find something that made me feel good.
http://conservativepapers.com/news/...nds-to-abandon-multiculturalism/#.UXuqWMqjtXK

The level of stupidity in this thread is mind boggeling. Lol.

You're right there is plenty of stupidity on this thread. It has been quite some time since I've seen it at this level.

Find yourself a gold star and slap it on your forehead . You earned it, Trigger!

Something else to ponder...

If Muslims and their apologists really want to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way.
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just “terrorism,” but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

I'm done with this thread.

Have a good day.