Muslims kill more Christians, this time in Pakistan

[LaCroix]

The relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.

I don't think this is true

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf

I think that your evidence disproves your argument:

Terrorist activity is highly concentrated — five countries accounted for 78 per cent of deaths. Fifty-seven per cent of all attacks and 78 per cent of all deaths occurred in only five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (page 5)

In all of those countries the terrorists are Muslims.

Two groups are responsible for half the deaths from terrorism — Boko Haram and ISIL. Fifty-one per cent of terrorist deaths that are attributed to a terrorist group were
by Boko Haram and ISIL.(also page 5)

Both of those are Islamic fundamentalist groups.  The other three members of the top five (al-Shabaab, Fulani, and Taliban; see pages 41-44) are also Islamic, though arguably the Fulani are not acting on religious grounds.

Perhaps you should read your sources before citing them.

how do you define "nearly all"?

[The Brain]

What is the Brain's narrative?

Glorious.

[grumbler]

The relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.

I don't think this is true

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf

I think that your evidence disproves your argument:

Terrorist activity is highly concentrated — five countries accounted for 78 per cent of deaths. Fifty-seven per cent of all attacks and 78 per cent of all deaths occurred in only five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (page 5)

In all of those countries the terrorists are Muslims.

Two groups are responsible for half the deaths from terrorism — Boko Haram and ISIL. Fifty-one per cent of terrorist deaths that are attributed to a terrorist group were
by Boko Haram and ISIL.(also page 5)

Both of those are Islamic fundamentalist groups.  The other three members of the top five (al-Shabaab, Fulani, and Taliban; see pages 41-44) are also Islamic, though arguably the Fulani are not acting on religious grounds.

Perhaps you should read your sources before citing them.

how do you define "nearly all"?

The usual way:  close to all, almost all.  How do you define it?

[viper37]

I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.

You may describe yourself as anything you want.  It does not mean you represent that group.

[DGuller]

I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term.  Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.

[Martinus]

I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term.  Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.

I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion. It is quite obvious from the link Jacob posted that Muslim terrorists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorism globally (the report itself mentions that just two groups - ISIS and Boko Haram - are responsible for more than half of terrorist attacks).

[DGuller]

I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the discussion would've been derailed no matter what, it was only going to be a question of pretext.

[grumbler]

I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion. It is quite obvious from the link Jacob posted that Muslim terrorists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorism globally (the report itself mentions that just two groups - ISIS and Boko Haram - are responsible for more than half of terrorist attacks).

I don't believe that Berkut "misspoke" at all, and I think that the evidence bears that out.

I also don't think that the discussion of who is actually carrying out terrorist attacks represents a complete derailment of a thread about terrorist attacks.  If we try to keep the thread focused solely on Muslim attacks on Christians in Pakistan, there isn't much to say, and so no point to the thread.

[Queequeg]

I'm seeing a lot of religious Turks using this bombing for more of their murderous self pity bullshit.  "THE WEST WON'T PAY ATTENTION WHEN MUSLIMS DIE!"---an actual quote.  God, what loathsome people. 

[Berkut]

I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term.  Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.

I think for the purposes of my point, whether it is 75% or 99% is really rather immaterial.

The relevant point is that comparing total attacks to total number of Muslims is completely misleading.

[viper37]

Nobody claims, or thinks, that all Muslims are terrorists, so pointing that tautaology out is hardly interesting.

hmm. a bit of bad faith, here?

What we do know is that Muslims, compared to other religions, tend to have much more intolerant views and are more accepting of violence as a means of furthering their religion.

Not really.  It is a lot more fuzzy on suicide than Christianity, which does not recognize the concept of martyr, as in killing yourself in the name of God.  You can be killed for God, you can kill for God, you can not kill yourself for God, so big difference here, obviously, we can bomb people, we can plant bombs to kill people, we can commit massacre, so long as we do it for the good reasons, i.e. bringing people in the light of Jesus Christ.

There were, after all, religious figures that supported the US invasion of Iraq, even some calling it a "just war" despite the Ten Commandments (Thou shall not kill) and Jesus message that was never about war.

With the actions of the IRA, we know that even, if late in the fight, the Church eventually condemned these attacks, locally, the Clergy was very supportive of the IRA.

The KKK were a pretty religious bunch and up until the 80s, the Southern Baptist did not consider the black men equal to the white.  Things change, slowly.

That obviously manfests itself from very peaceful Muslims on one end, through a range of more tolerance for and approval of violence down to the small few (but still more than enough to cause incredible anguish) willing to actually enage in violence, and the even fewer who are willing to engage in violence we characterize as terrorism.

And you will the same with many religions, even self professed atheists are cheering for ISIS.
The hatred of the West goes beyond the religion.

So you easily respond to this criticism by pointing that out - but there is a huge difference between the percentages, and those differences matter.

I'd be curious to see the regional repartition of people believing as such.  Nigeria is pretty much divided equally between Mulsims and Christians.  Yet, every now and then they have a witch scare.  The last one was 2 year old boy, accused of being a witch.  Accused by Christians.

Some rather disturbing fraction of Muslims worldwide think it should the the law that people like me should be put to death.

Most of these people come from 3rd world countries, and I rather suspects than Christians in the same areas, where they are allowed to exists, of course, hold similar views.  See Nigeria above.

The point is that it is the case that this particular religion has a very different in scale level of tolerance for social norms that we would, and should, find completely intolerable.

In Brazil, the parents of a raped 9 year old, and her too, were excommunicated from the Church because she had an abortion.  In such countries, excommunication means you lose all kind of social contacts you may have, most of your family won't speak to you anymore, most of your friends will ignore you.  Pretty hard punishment for a rape victim.  Yet, is is Christian.  Of course, she wasn't strangled, so she should be happy not to live in a muslim country?
 
Most mulslims living in the West eventually adopt similar values and views to us, but we must deploy some efforts for that to happen, and we must certainly not allow the social norms we would and should find completely intolerable, and we can't wait until they reach that point to intervene.  But I am the minority here, and even you would not support such things.

The relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.

Not it is not really a relevant fact.  Because first, you look at today.  5 years ago, it was not so.  5 years from now, it might be worst, or it might be another problem.  Then you need to look at the support these guys get.
ISIS is different from other movements in that they specifically target non Sunni muslims.  Even Al-Queida did not go that far, I mean, they were slaughtering non Sunni muslism, but they did not advertize it like ISIS does.

ISIS is much closer to a nazi ideology than previous groups.  Islamo-fascists, a term so many people dislike, is quite apt here, I believe.

ISIS is as much a problem for the majority of Muslims than it the Nazis were for most Christians.  Given were Islam is the most popular, given the ambiguous nature of governmental support to ISIS in many such countries where they are officially at war with the group but still let the funding go freely to them, it is a risky venture to protest against their actions, especially when Christians are the target.

As such, saying Islam, the religion, is the only problem, or even the one we must face is completely losing the sight of many cultural factors.  Also, you penalize a fuckton of people who couldn't care less about Isis and just want to live their religion in peace, praying to their god as they see fit and not asking for anything. When you lump them with the fanatics, you have a predictable situation: parts of these people tend to radicalize because they feel ostracized.

Any criticism of religion in the US would not go well for any public figure.  I can not imagine Hilary Clinton criticizing Christianity or some form or Protestantism for promoting Creationism in school or other silly ideas.
And that's the US, a civilized country, with protection for freespeech.  The religious hard core nuts that form the backbone of a huge part of your country are already radicalizing themselves because they feel you are too secular.  Try that aginst 3rd world countries, just for the fun of it.

Let's say we find that last year this happened 1000 times. Very alarming! Now, they start doing some investigating, and low and behold, it turns out that of the 1000 cars that burst into flame last year, 992 of them were Fords! Holy crap!

And in that case, would you support the government of your country to ban Ford cars from being sold in the US?

Of course, YOU would argue that there are some several million Fords out there, and only some tiny fraction have burst into flames, so the fact that 99% of them were Fords is completely irrelevant, and we should totally NOT look at Fords as the potential problem, because most Fords don't burst into flame.

A better figure would be 1000 fire, 260 from Ford, 220 from GM, 205 from Toyota, 175 from Chrysler and the rest from all other manufacturers.  That's overwhelmingly a problem with Ford, apparently.  But if you look at it, there's a lot of fires from other companies.  Now, let's add one more piece of data: of all these fires, only 4 were caused due to a similar technical fault in Ford cars.  The rest all had diverse cause for their fire, not related at all to that same 4.

Would you still think it's a good idea to blame Ford, to ban all their cars from the US? What if Ford sells its technology to Toyota and they are now the one making faulty cars because it's cheaper and there's no consequence?  Even better, what if Ford moved to Canada and due to trade agreements they were now free to produce the same shitty cars and sell them in the US?

That is whey the analogy fails, because you use only partial data.

Also, there was this one time 100 years ago where a car once burst into flames before Fords were even invented - what about THAT! Hah!

If I were to take your example, examine all data, and come to the conclusion that in 99.99% of thechical faults in cars that led to critical injury/death or serious property damage, Ford was involved and has been involved in a similar proportion for 100 years, I would totally support the ban on Ford vehicle.

Now, if you want to argue that people should not assume that all Fords will burst into flames, then THAT is a reasonable argument. Of course, in this case, nobody is assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, so it is hardly relevant.

Have you been listening to your next POTUS, lately?

But if you want to understand Islamic terrorism, you would be a fool to pretend that the beliefs of the people engaged in the terrorism have nothing to do with their actions...even when they tell that is exactly why they are doing the things that they do.

They don't have nothing to do, but it's a much more complex scenario than simply blaming the religion as that leads us nowhere.  There are millions of muslims who do not commit terror acts and do not support it.  Yet, they are of the same Faith.

If I take again your car example, if among those faulty cars, 98% come from the same plant, than I would take action against that plant.  If Ford used lobbyist to promote their cars as safe while they know it is not, if their lobbyist insisted we should all drive Ford for our good, if they managed to influence the government in making laws that favor Ford growth to the detriment of other cars, I would take actions against their lobbyist, i.e. shutting down their access to the government, at the very least.

Right now, we let the ennemy's lobbyist right here, influence our governments, we let them spread their hate, and we have tons of people applauding it, always saying the same: these problems they have elsewhere, we won't have them here because we're better.

The danger is that extreme form of Islam that preaches hate, that preaches the submission of women, that preaches intolerance toward other religion.  It has as much to do with Islam as Jerry Fallwell represents all Christians.  It is as much muslim as Donald Trump is American, both are what they say they are, but they certainly do not represent the majority, they do not speak for them even if they say they do.

Basing my analysis of the American people on Donald Trump's behavior would be missing the point as much as you do when you insist Islam is the problem.

[viper37]

Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.

The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.

Suleyman, Saladin and Barbarossa were the original Islamic terrorists.

And Richard the Lionhearted as well as Guy de Lusignan, noble heroes?

WTF does whether they are noble heroes or complete assholes have to do with anything?

What are you trying to prove here - that there are other assholes in the world and throughout history?

Who are you arguing with?

did you read the entire conversation or did you have a knew jerk reaction as usual?

[viper37]

When I read Jacob's and viper's post, I almost can't wait all those refugees the man-child prime minister Trudeau is planning to bring to Canada start to blow shit up. But that would be petty.

don't look at me, I disagree with Jacob's and CC's carebears attitude that all muslims are the same.  I welcome moderate muslims anytime, unlike you, but I don't want the bloody fanatics here, and I hate that my PM has cut round corners to admit so many in such a short time.

As as been proven in the past, for any movement, you don't need zillions of people to stir up shit.  Only 1 or 2 radicals to recruit a few dislussionned ones and that would be enough.  And without proper resources to integrate them, it will lead to serious problems down the road, when these people have to face inflation from multiple budget deficits and tax hikes as soon as they work to repay that debt.

[viper37]

If we look at the various insurgencies, dictatorships, paramilitary groups, and organized crime lords in South and Central America we see plenty of wanton killing and terrorist acts - some of them on quite a large scale - and some of it quite recent too.

And if we were talking about what should be done about Mexican drug cartel violence, it would be foolish to claim that since rampant violence has happened where drugs were not involved, we should ignore the drug trade as a primary motivating factor in that particular violence.

what would be dumb is to think there could be supply without demand, though.

[viper37]

I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.

Grallon is gay.
Grallon is attracted to teenage boys.
All gays are attracted to teenage boys, wether they admit it or not.

Got it, thanks for the clarification!

Therefore, we should prehemptively jail all gay men.  That would drasctically reduce the demand for juvenile prostitutes and reduce the number of pedophiles in liberty.  Since it's about protecting our society, our values, you will agree with me, right?  We can't take any chances.