• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren’t!

Sahar

Well-Known Member
If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

piechart2.jpg


According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't | loonwatch.com

Thoughts?
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Thoughts?
How many people have been killed by Islamic radicals in the US (and around the world) from 1980 to 2005?
And how many have been killed by the above mentioned radical Jews in the same time period?
I just wanna see some rough numbers.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
A general look at the FBI source shows me that some attacks by Jewish groups (I didn't read who exactly they were attacking yet) resulted in 3 deaths (from what I picked up), and it seems that these attacks were done in the early 80's until 1986.
 

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
The same kind of media distortion happens on a variety of other topics - namely media coverage of dog bites. Part of why Pit Bulls have such a bad reputation is that the media loves to emphasize cases where bites are attributed to them, while down playing or failing to report on dog bites received from other breeds. Why? Media is programmed to feed you what sells. If you want facts you have to find them on your own.

Terrorism has little to do with religion and everything to do with being bat-**** insane.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
I think that when the terrorists themselves cite religious reasons for their actions, we can't ignore it. It doesn't mean that there is also nothing wrong with them culturally and individually.

In either case lets look at the numbers from the FBI report. 3178 killed in terror attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005. Out of these 3178, 2972 have been killed in Al Qaeda's attack on WTC. In addition between those years 14,038 people have been injured in terror attacks on American soil, out of these 14K, more than 12,000 have been injured in 9/11 as well.
 

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
Not all terrorists are Muslim. Cases in point in the US, terrorist attacks by Americans on American soil; the 1970's Weather Underground activist attacks (left wing), the Oklahoma City bombing in 1996 (right wing). Not all terrorists are inspired by religion, some are purely political extremists.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
 

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
An unstable individual will use any philosophy - religious or otherwise - to support their unstable viewpoints.

Without religion, people will kill for money and power. That being said, it's not that religion isn't worth noting, I just feel like there isn't too much you can do with that. Mental illness on the other hand - well, sometimes there's hope for treating that.

(I've never met a pit bull I didn't like, btw;) )

Shanti
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
That pie chart is forgetting something, or has purposely placed it in the "other" category. I see left-wing extremists, but not right wing? What about all the abortion clinic bombings and things like that?

On topic, no, not all terrorists are Muslims. The US media portrays them that way, and I think they're trying to get us to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Which is weird, because supposedly the media is controlled by the left, but they're the same one's who supposedly trying to "Islamicize" the US.

Something seems odd about this whole thing....
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
That pie chart is forgetting something, or has purposely placed it in the "other" category. I see left-wing extremists, but not right wing? What about all the abortion clinic bombings and things like that?

On topic, no, not all terrorists are Muslims. The US media portrays them that way, and I think they're trying to get us to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Which is weird, because supposedly the media is controlled by the left, but they're the same one's who supposedly trying to "Islamicize" the US.

Something seems odd about this whole thing....
The forward of the article that pie graph came from talks about what you find odd.
FBI — Terrorism 2002/2005
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

piechart2.jpg




Thoughts?
Gosh Latinos have been busy.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
On topic, no, not all terrorists are Muslims. The US media portrays them that way, and I think they're trying to get us to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Which is weird, because supposedly the media is controlled by the left, but they're the same one's who supposedly trying to "Islamicize" the US.

Something seems odd about this whole thing....

It's classic moral panic. Every few years the media will pick up on something that frightens/enrages people and milk it for all it's worth. It provides an easy means for the media to gain an emotional reaction from its audience, but also tends to result in other issues being pushed to one side.
This isn't me trying to say the media is bad, it's just how people are. Journalists need sensationalist stories to make a living, when such a story appears it's hounded by all the other media groups trying to get in on the action.
In the UK for example we still get the odd story popping up about princess Diana.
 

WyattDerp

Active Member
Puerto Rico? Heh. Can you blame 'em?

Puerto Ricans "were collectively made U.S. citizens" in 1917 as a result of the Jones-Shafroth Act. However, U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the U.S. president, though both major parties, Republican and Democrat, run primary elections in Puerto Rico to send delegates to vote on a presidential candidate. Since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory (see above) and not a U.S. state, the United States Constitution does not fully enfranchise US citizens residing in Puerto Rico. (See also: "Voting rights in Puerto Rico"). Despite their American citizenship, however, only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Ricans. Various other U.S Supreme Court decisions have held which rights apply in Puerto Rico and which ones do not. Puerto Ricans have a long history of service in the U.S. armed forces and, since 1917, they have been included in the U.S. compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect.

No taxation without representation, huh? Would you consider drafting people to die in your wars a tax? I would. So how come the Boston Tea Party is cool, but something like it in Puerto Rico is right out?

"Terrorism." What a hollow word that is. And it's not like FBI considered or considers COINTELPRO as terrorism, is it, or kidnapping people from all over the world and detaining them without trial..
 

WyattDerp

Active Member
Oh, and define "extreme left". To me that's the people who think it would be nice if you could eat light etc.... so clearly we have different dictionaries here.

In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.

The most extreme form of that is defending people who are attacked against violence, and it sure as **** should involve plenty of demonstration, but the moment you throw bottles or plant bombs, the mob thinking their power in numbers or in being clandestine justifies attacking the comparatively weak, that's no longer "left" to me. It's brownshirts without uniform attacking brownshirts in uniform.

But of course a bunch of fascists would be interested in muddling that, if need be by deploying agents provocateurs. Ever thought why anyone would think that's a good idea, much less do it repeatedly? Because a bit if damage, injury or death is a small price to pay for smearing "left-wing radicals". Maybe ponder that for a bit.

So... how you can look at that chart and cry about Muslims first and last is beyond me. There are bigger and more interesting issues on display here, that actually concern everyone.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Puerto Rico? Heh. Can you blame 'em?



No taxation without representation, huh? Would you consider drafting people to die in your wars a tax? I would. So how come the Boston Tea Party is cool, but something like it in Puerto Rico is right out?

"Terrorism." What a hollow word that is. And it's not like FBI considered or considers COINTELPRO as terrorism, is it, or kidnapping people from all over the world and detaining them without trial..

Now wait a minute. Let's not go off on half a tangent here.

Nearly a half million voters chose to leave a portion of the ballot blank. And voters also ousted the pro-statehood governor, eliminating one of the main advocates for a cause that would need the approval of the U.S. Congress.
Puerto Rico vote endorses statehood with asterisk - News - Boston.com
Further, 60% of those identifying themselves as Puetrican live and vote in the US, leaving the other 40% on the island. almost reminds me of Hawaii.
However, addressing this point further would derail this thread beyond belief so I'll leave it at that.
 

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
In my eyes America with its forgein policy is asking for attacks it can sound harsh but its true.

It doesn't really matter does it? No matter what, just because of US support of Israel gives muslim extremists reason to kill Americans. It will never stop, therefore, I say - "vengeful justice, blood for blood"! Never forgive, never forget!

Hail, Set!
/Adramelek\
Gnothi seauton!
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think it's foolish to really attribute willingness for bloodshed to a religion -- as someone has pointed out already, if it weren't the religion, wicked people would just find something else to "justify" their actions.

Religion might just be most convenient, which might explain the demographics of terrorists for instance; but there have been plenty of heinous actions done throughout history in the name of politics or alternative life philosophies instead. :shrug:

It's certainly not fair to blame Islam itself.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
In my eyes America with its forgein policy is asking for attacks it can sound harsh but its true.

Shouldn't a distinction be made between military and leadership targets -- from civilians?

Or, and I ask this dispassionately, do you believe civilians are culpable for the actions of their government, even if they disagree with their government?
 
Top