Recent tangential discussions on Momo's Islamophobia thread certainly point to fact that Islam is at the center of world terrorism today. By that, I mean that Islam is claimed as motivation for acts of violence against innoncent persons to further a political gain. While several here take issue with my more demonstrative statement that not all Muslims today are terrorists, but the majority of today's terrorists are Muslims. None can provide a single example of terrorism today whose claimed ideology is responsible for a larger bodycount. None occupies world attention and resources like Islamic terror.
As AAA has pointed out so eloquently, those who engage in such violence are not acting in the spirit and intent of Islam. Nevertheless, there can be no denial of their motivation. They joyfully die in suicide attacks screaming, "God is Great!" ...not "Free the people" or "Justice Now!"
Their leaders make their motivation clear.
"In the name of Allah the Avenger, I swear on the holy book to perform my sacred duty as a soldier of Islam in this Jihad to restore to this world the light of divine justice... Allah demands no less. For to die in the cause is to be sent immediately to paradise."
A Taliban official, explaining why the group is violent.
"Allah is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
Credo of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned attacks and numerous subsidiary terrorist organizations
“Democracy is among the menaces we inherited from an alien government. It is part of the system we are fighting against… It is not possible to work within a democracy and establish an Islamic system… If Allah gives us a chance, we will try to bring in the pure concept of an Islamic Caliphate.''
"The notion of the sovereignty of the people is anti-Islamic. Only Allah is sovereign.''
Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist organization.
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”
The Ayatollah Khomeini
“Terrorism is a badge of honour on our chests until Judgement Day. In the name of Allah, we’re pursuing the path of jihad until we uproot you, exterminate your state until the rule of the king vanishes. We follow the steps of the Prophet (Muhammad)... Allah is our Lord; you have none."
Hassan al-Smeik, leader of the cell that plotted a chemical weapons attack intended to kill 80,000 Jordanians
"What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his Prophet."
Mohammed Bouyeri, explaining in court why he stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh to death. (Bouyeri was holding a Qur'an at the time).
“Our religion is Islam - obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad... This is how our ethical stances are dictated. “
Mohammad Sidique Khan, London subway bomber, explaining his motives on a pre-recorded video tape.
"Know that, I did what I did for the pleasure of Allah alone."
From the will of Bilal Abdulla, a Glasgow suicide bomber.
"We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord and Allah loves us to die and kill in his path. Anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and you will not be able to deny this because this is the words in the Koran and the words of our the messenger of Allah, prayers and peace upon him."
"We love to die in the path of Allah... On top of this is to punish and to humiliate the Kuffar [non-believer]"
"Thank God Allah accepted my duas [prayers] yeah, and provided me a means to do this."
From the farewell videos of those convicted in the plot to kill thousands of airline passengers over the Atlantic in 2006.
"We killed them outside their land, praise be to Allah. Today, we kill them in the midst of their own home.
O Allah, revive an entire nation by our deaths. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr. O Allah, I sacrifice myself for your sake, accept me as a martyr.
To the Garden of Eden, our first house. We shall meet in the eternal Paradise with the prophets, honest people, martyrs and righteous people. They are the best of companions. Praise be to Allah. Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you. "Ahmad al-Haznawi, Flight 93 Hijacker
It simply depends on your definition of terror, Mike. If it’s weird enough, you needn’t even forge the statistics to “prove” that “None can provide a single example of terrorism today whose claimed ideology is responsible for a larger bodycount.” I suspect you will choose a definition of terrorism that an Afghan wedding guest will certainly disagree with.
True. I wonder why. Why are for instance you so eager to give these unwholesome figures a platform with your quotations? Of course I know that most oil-exporting states have Muslim majorities (if not, they have at least Chavez). The “war on terror” is a war for oil.
So those scum who murdered 2500+ people in New York on 9/11 weren't terrorist then ?
So those scum who murdered 300+ people in Madrid weren't terrorists then ?
So those scum who murdered 50+ people in London on 7/7 weren't terrorists then ?
So what the f*** were they then ? Members of the girl guides ? What exactly ???
Idiot.
Who said they weren’t terrorists? Mike didn’t. I didn’t either. Nobody else has posted on this thread before you.
[ EDITED ]
You needn’t sign your posts. Your other moniker already appears at the top.
I think Owly just provided you the statistics and none were forged. All of them were motivated by Islam according to the terrorists that committed them. You even agreed they were terrorists. Good--that's a starting point. Now provide me with a different group with a bigger bodycount.
Do you have another group in mind with a bigger bodycount? Or does your sole argument that the definition of "terror" is too broad to be meaningful?
The references to Afghan wedding parties is stricty gratuitous and stupid. We have to at least agree that for an event to be labled "terrorist" it has to include a deliberate target, not the misidentification of an enemy combatant whose injury or death is the unfortunate and unintended effect of any armed conflict.
All conflict parties in Congo
US Army in Iraq (for instance)
Blackwater/Xe
Death squadrons in Latin America acting on behalf of the US
Tamil Tigers
Sri Lankan Army
Interahamwe
Do you need a longer list?
You can’t say I ever denied that there is such a thing as Islamist terror, or that New York, Madrid, or London and many more were terrorist acts by Islamists. Owly didn’t provide a statistics, he provided 3 incidents, all of them doubtless terrorist acts of incredible brutality and murderousness and committed by Islamists.
The people who are killed in Congo aren’t white, of course. Is it a criteria, or are you just claiming there are less deaths by terrorism there, or what is it?
I just say that firstly, it’s more than doubtful that Islamists (are they all the same btw.?) are the group with the biggest body count and secondly, the danger of Islamist terror (which doubtless exists and is a serious and worrying matter) is exploited. At the same time the killing of civilians, for instance in Afghanistan is treated as if it wasn’t terrorist. “Targeted killings” are terrorist acts.
Provide a definition of terrorism, Mike. We won’t get far without it.
The people who are killed in Congo aren’t white, of course. Is it a criteria, or are you just claiming there are less deaths by terrorism there, or what is it?
Many of those who were killed in New York, in Madrid, in London, in Bali etc etc etc weren't 'white' either. So why are you being racist ? Fascist Left scumbag reverts to type. Typical.
I should have taken into account that there is someone on this thread who finds understanding posts too difficult. If I keep my posts so simple that even an intellectually challenged little fascist can understand them, someone else might feel insulted. Maybe illustrations help.
Not I. I pointed out that racists reduce terrorism to acts where white western people are at risk. They arrive at the conclusion that Islamist terrorists are the group with the biggest body count.
During the holiday season your mental faculties seem to deteriorate, Owly. Don’t overdo it.
No one mentioned 'race' except you. So why are you being racist ? Typical of the Fascist Left.
You don’t get it, Owly, but then nobody expects you to.
Mike never mentioned 'race'. You did big mouth. So why are you discussing 'race' ??
You won't get it.
My brain is bigger than my mouth. And yours?
No one mentioned 'race' except you. Why big fat mouth ???
You haven’t got it. Everyone else has.
Whose big fat mouth?
Merry Christmas, Owly. And happy New Year 2010. Think it out for yourself. Just take your time. And happy New Year 2011.
Why are you mentioning 'race' ? No one else has. You must be a racist then.
And Happy New Year 2012
2011? 2012? Someone's been sampling the Christmas Gluhwein a bit early?
Typical Fascist: doesn't even know what year it is.
I can help you out, Owly you fascist: 23 Dec. 2009.
Mike,
Don’t know what Owly has been sampling. At any rate it hasn’t done him any good. Do you think his brain will recover, and within two years at that? Don’t say “his what?”.
"While several here take issue with my more demonstrative statement that not all Muslims today are terrorists, but the majority of today's terrorists are Muslims. None can provide a single example of terrorism today whose claimed ideology is responsible for a larger bodycount."
What a strange way to argue. You make an offensive statement for which you can provide not one piece of evidence (though I notice you have removed the world "overwhelming") and maintain that it is up to others to disprove it. Not so. You should produce your evidence for this statement or admit that it is pure prejudice.
On the other hand, if you change your statement to say that the majority of those the US deems to be terrorists are Muslims (especially those it has already killed) then there's little to argue with. It would probably be true. It would also be completely meaningless.
Why is it the Fascist Left don't seem to have a problem with Islamic Terrorism ?
Is it that they actually agree with the Islamist, making common cause with them ?
Is it that they don't regard the murder of 2500+ people in New York; 300+ in Madrid; 50+ in London to be of any consequence or that they attribute the cause of these murders to the West ? If Islamic terrorist didn't carry out these disgusting crimes who did ? The Mothers Union perhaps ?
Why is it these bigots and morons are so blind to reality.
Congratulations. That is your most moronic and gratuitous argument to date. So if I assert that Islamic terrorism is the most prevalent form of terrorism in the world today, the only reason is because I am a racist?
Nice tactic, but a transparent fallacy. Rather than refute the assertion, challenge the motives of the person asserting it. If you can sucker them into attempting to prove they are not racist, then you never have to address the issue. That's a common tactic of the climate change Nazis as well. You are in good company.
Tell you what. Let's start with an assumption that neither of us is motivated by racism and both of us are on a search for the truth, okay? Do your best to keep your cats caged and shoes in the closet. I will try in the future not to describe your arguments as moronic or fascist (even when they are).
Since you asked me to provide a definition of terrorism and terrorist as a basis for discussion, I would offer that Terrorism has too many facets to narrow to a single definition. But we can generally define it—that is, agree on a working definition if you will, within the context of its key components and use those as a basis from which to launch a cogent discussion. A terror group for discussion must have ALL the following characteristics to be considered for comparison. Wikipedia defines the key criteria for a terrorist group that I think is pretty good start as a working definition:
1. Violence and threat of violence: According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
2. Psychological Impact and Fear: The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences.
3. Perpetrated for a political goal: Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs.
4. Deliberate targeting of non-combatants: The distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess.
5. Unlawfulness or Illegitimacy: Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.
So, now that we have an impartial scorecard, let’s look at your list:
1. All conflict parties in Congo—Unless there is some overarching ideology that binds these parties, they cannot be considered “a group” but would have to be considered individually. Which ones are in existence today and what is their bodycount for 2009? Resubmit with evidence for further consideration.
2. US Army in Iraq (for instance)—Sorry, does not meet #4 or #5. Does not meet criteria--rejected from consideration.
3. Blackwater/Xe—Sorry, does not meet #4 or #5. Rejected for consideration.
4. Death squadrons in Latin America acting on behalf of the US—Same issue as the Congo. Break them out or show some overarching link between them. Which ones are in existence today and what is their bodycount for 2009? Resubmit with evidence for further consideration.
5. Tamil Tigers—Meets all criteria, but fails to come close to the scope of Islamic Terrorism and exists pretty much in name only today.
6. Sri Lankan Army—No evidence of #3 and does not meet #5. Does not meet criteria--rejected from consideration.
7. Interahamwe-- (Kinyarwanda meaning "those who stand/work/fight/attack together"[1]) is a Hutu paramilitary organization. The militia enjoyed the backing of the Hutu-led government leading up to, during, and after the Rwandan Genocide. Of course, that took place in 1994 and no evidence they are even in existence today. So no way to compare them against their Islamic terrorist brethren. Rejected—no longer relevant.
Got any other groups for consideration? So far, most of your examples are not even current terrorist groups, much less of equal scale to Islamic terrorism.
So...let's look at what's happening in Islamofascist terror--those terrorist groups motivated by a political-religious ideology based in Islam.
Weekly Jihad Report
Dec 12 - Dec 18
42
182
362
Monthly Jihad Report
November 2009
139
14
5
529
1075
Source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I knew you are not un-intelligent…
You couldn’t resist the temptation of that parting shot, could you?
Not so fast and dictatorial. Your definition is nuts. Don’t pretend you don’t know how controversial it is. 1-4 are unnecessarily complicated and convoluted, 5 is an outrage.
Legality is defined by a body, usually a state. If one state says unlawful and another says lawful, what then? Someone who uses the words “fascist” and “Nazi” as often as you do should have thought of it. Your definition says that Georg Elser was a terrorist and the bombing of Guernica was just fine! I suppose I mustn’t describe your arguments as moronic or fascist (even when they are), but it’s hard.
Legitimacy is a far better criterion, but something that can only be decided in hindsight and with a lot of distance, if at all.
I stick to my list (although it is very incomplete).
Not so fast. I'm not dictating the terms--you are the one who requested them, several times as a matter of fact. Also remember this is not MY original definition--I provided an unbiased criteria from Wikipedia because it is not coming from a single nation--it emcompasses a world view of terrorism. It is a working definition based on characteristics of the organizations in question--characteristics that are based on common elements of terror incidents. But the definition is certainly not "nuts" simply because the only one you dispute is #5 and the others are too complicated for you.
What is so complicated and convoluted about 1-4? The fact you don't understand it? Look at each one carefully and try to follow along as best you can.
1. You suggest that "violence" or threat of violence is NOT a component of a terrorist organization? The victims of terror have no difficulty comprehending the violence of terrorist organizations. So why can't you?
2. There is not a significant element of psychological fear involved in terrorism? Ahem--perhaps you should reexamine the root of the word "terrorism".
3. You provided Tamil Tigers as an example. Did they not have a political agenda? How about Hamas? Taliban? Al Queda? If there was no political goal, what is the point of the terror...terror for the sake of terror? To what end? If terror is a tactic of irregular warfare, there will always be a goal...a desired endstate to be achieved.
4. Non-combatants are the PRIMARY targets of terror for the very reason they can be terrorized and thereby coerce direction the government in power. Terrorism HAS to have a victim and the best victim of terror is one who is powerless and defenseless. People that can shoot back don't make good terror victims and it takes a toll on recruiting.
These are very simple concepts and universal in their understanding. While I see the logic of #5 and I thought you might have a problem with it, I honestly thought you would agree to the other 4 criteria without reservation. Or is the problem that I was the one who offered them?
What have you been sampling? You are only answering a minor point out of my post.
Normally the first step is to define a crime, in this case a terrorist act. The next step is the definition of terrorist and terrorist group derived from the definition of the crime. Your definition (1-4) uses the other way round. Unnecessarily complicated, but you can have it.
I don’t accept no 5. I gave you two examples why. Any comment?
I suggested legitimacy instead of legality, if we can agree what that is.
I have some objections to your objections to my list of course (don’t forget I rejected your #5):
No. 1: There needn’t be an “overarching ideology”, just a political goal. They have that. Names of organisations and body-count: Don’t start with your “give me links which I won’t read” stuff again. Remember you suggested we assume “both of us are on a search for the truth, okay?” You are not completely un-informed, don’t pretend you were. Each party is “fighting” the civilians of the other side, and I guess you know that. If you really want to read links, I will supply some. If you just want to use tricks, you must first promise to read my links. You know what happens then.
No. 2: Deliberately refusing to protect civilians sufficiently amounts to the same thing. That’s why so many civilians die in Iraq. I don’t care if Mr Laqueur agrees with me or not. And how many detainees have been tortured to death? No 2 of my list meets #4 of your definition as clarified by me, and #5 is moot anyway.
For no. 3: the same is true as for no. 2, only more so. Additionally they are deliberately killing and raping civilians. Blackwater/Xe is an extremely dangerous organisation. Your authorities will have a lot of problems when they decide to get rid of them one day I bet.
My no. 4: Worth of an own thread. But today there are less death squadrons in most parts of Latin America, that much is right. BTW, what is “today” for you? Which years do you want to look at, I mean.
No. 5. I wouldn’t be so sure that Tamil Tigers are finished, if I were you. Militarily, yes. I don’t see that the underlying political problem is going to be solved, and that means the Tigers can possibly be strong enough soon to make trouble again. Do you think that Sri Lanka will give the Tamils enough rights to gain peace? You must be dreaming.
No. 6. No evidence of a political goal in Sri Lanka? Of course it’s a political goal not to give a minority rights of autonomy or independence.
No. 7. under that name no longer relevant. Otherwise very relevant.
You asked for a definition and I provided the universal characteristics of terrorism as proposed by experts in the field. I should say, "universal with the exception of Momo" since the foremost experts in the field agree with #1 - 4 and you do not. I don't accept you examples of #5, but I can accept "legitimate" instead of "legal" because legitimate includes legal, although I suspect that you might rationalize some kind of warped subjective "moral legitimacy" that I would find repugnant. Perhaps you might find the Taliban "legitimate" because in your opinion, they represent the best interests of the people. I think "legitimate" is too imprecise.
In fact, I think your whole view of terrorism is "nuts" to use your characterization and I would be interested in the assessment of the rest of the resident Liberals here.
Let me refresh your memory of my assertion that exists within a 1-4 construct and your version of #5.
Once again your response demonstrate that none of your examples meet this very basic objective standard. Would you like me to post the lastest bodycount stats for the week on Islamic Terror? Any of your favorites doing better?
Just post some numbers and link to your source. That's not too tasking is it?
"Why is it the Fascist Left don't seem to have a problem with Islamic Terrorism ?"
I'm not a Fascist, Little Englander. And I have plenty of problems with terrorism, no matter who it is perpetrated by and to whom. You have no basis for asserting otherwise. But as I've said elsewhere, evidence isn't necessary when you are bred and raised to be all knowing. Flat Earthers like yourself are defined by their ability to look at one thing and describe something else.
"Is it that they actually agree with the Islamist, making common cause with them ?"
With us or against us eh? Again, can you produce some evidence to support this nonsense? No? Pretty pointless then isn't it?
You are a Fascist Left Scumbag. 'Twas ever thus. Given you were raised in a house where the Soviet Union could do no wrong one is hardly surprised you hold the Fascist Left views you do.
Like the [racist reference deleted] scumbag you are a complete and utter waste of space. And yes you are utterly pointless.
So no evidence then. As predicted.
Legitimate is imprecise, right, and that’s a serious problem. To say that “legitimate includes legal” is worse though, because it’s not true. In an ideal state it would be true, in a democratic state it’s almost true and the difference usually doesn’t matter too much, but in a dictatorship the gap between legal and legitimate widens and matters. I have already given you an example: Georg Elser acted illegally, but with moral legitimacy. I know of course that his memory has become a cold war casualty, but I am shocked at your condemning him. Are you sure you know what you are doing? I admire him and you find that repugnant. Your problem, not mine. I insist on legitimacy, not legality as a criterion.
No, I won’t post some numbers. You claimed Islamists were the terrorist group with the highest body-count, remember? I doubt that, and you have got to prove your claim. I helped you a lot by naming other terrorist groups. You post some numbers proving that your favourite terrorists really can claim the high score.
Your use of the imprecise term “Islamist” causes another problem: there are very different groups, and often they fight each other.
I think, if an American soldier kills someone who is doubtless an Islamist terrorist, you will say well done. You would call the killing of a terrorist legal or legitimate or both. Right?
If an Islamist terrorist kills a civilian to achieve his political goal, you probably call this a terrorist act. Right?
If one Islamist terrorist kills another, of an opposing terrorist group, to achieve his political goal, what is that? An act of terrorism? Or would you say well done?
I think you must use a more precise term.
If you want to prove your point, it’s not enough to post the lastest bodycount stats for the week on Islamic Terror. You must provide the same stats for the week for all other terrorist groups to enable a comparison. I helped you a lot by naming some other groups that are candidates for the high score. And don’t forget that I will look closely at the definition of terrorism that your comparison uses. You’ve got to convince me that your claim is right, not the other way round.
Who cares what the Fascist Left think.
Post the figures. Lets see how many people their mates have murdered this week.
"Just post some numbers and link to your source. That's not too tasking is it?"
Why should Momo post the numbers? You're the one making the statement.
Every single one of your criteria for defining terrorism (you might get away with 5 on semantic grounds only) would apply to most imperialist governments including China, Russia, the US and Britain. 4 is silly because on the one hand terrorists do not exclusively target non-combatants and on the other hand governments frequently do (eg Israel's Blitzkriegs on the Gaza strip and Lebanon or the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure during the attacks on Iraq)
So are you going to back up your statement with some numbers or are you going to leave as a vacuous, unsupported statement?
The fact that I can provide numbers and you cannot prove my point. If ANY of the groups you cite were more prevalent, and occupied more world attention and resources than Islamic terror, then you could easily provide numbers that exceed mine. This is the evidence for my assertion. If I am so wrong, please provide me some numbers and set me straight. I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
Here are the numbers for Islamic terror for just the last quarter. What do YOU have?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Want to check that scorecard again Momo? The majority of the attacks above did NOT take place in oil-exporting states. Another myth of the Left debunked.
That's a totally pointless list Mike. Most of the incidents you have included are not controversial, it is what you have ommitted which is significant. You need to count all terrorism (including death squads, blockades, targeted killings, deliberate destruction of life preserving facilities, arbitrary arrest and torture etc) in order to make a comparison.
I wonder if you would have called any of these acts terrorist if they had been perpetrated under the Socialist Afghan regime (when of course, many were)
Since when does a terror attack have to be controversial to be a terror attack? That's completely absurd!
No...I do not need to include ALL terrorism. My assertion is about Islamic Terrorism and EVERY attack documented was committed on behalf of Allah according to the person who committed it. My numbers are current, not the Soviet Afghan war...just as my assertion is about the most prevalent terrorists TODAY.
I provide a third-party definition of Terrorism based on the characteristics of the terrorism incident--a criteria that is agreed upon worldwide and rejected by the Leftists here. If you would include a "military blockade" as a terror incident, then clearly you have no idea what a terror incident really is. Perhaps some photos of a marketplace bombing strewn with dismembered children or video of an innocent hostage being beheaded will clarify it for you.
I provided numbers based on international news reports accepted worldwide as accurate and rejected by the Leftists here because they are not controversial enough.
What this exercise really proves is that even in the face of objective evidence--a documented bodycount, ideology trumps fact. No numbers are offered to refute my assertion and evidence. Just a counter-charge with no evidence to support it. It is that type of myopia that endangers the world. You cannot defeat an enemy that you refuse to acknowledge.
You cannot defeat an enemy that you refuse to acknowledge.
But the Fascist Left don't see Islamic Terrorism as something which needs to be tackled and defeated.
Let the Fascists bring forward numbers to disprove what some of us have been saying for ages. But it makes you sick reading their drivel: first it's racism and then it is uncontroversial terrorism. Idiots and morons.
Owly,
Now you sign your posts with a plural?! Suffering of schizophrenia?
Mike,
Your list proves that there is such a thing as Islamist terror. Nobody has doubted that anyway. Now do the comparison to other sorts of terrorism. Make sure you don’t include legitimate violence in either list (see Georg Elser).
Have you read my posts at all?
I have read your posts. I just don't see how Georg Elser is relevant so I have not been distracted by it. Nor do I see how a discussion of legitimate violence has any relevance when the comparison is between relative degrees of illegitimate violence.
Now that we agree there is such a thing as Islamist terror and we have a scorecard of their immense degree of impact, my point is proven since no one, including you has provided any numbers which counter my assertion. I do not agree with BC that it is somehow my responsibility to research all possible terror groups for another with a higher bodycount. In fact, the difficulty of locating such data reinforces my point. All the numbers I provided were from international media--the same international media that reports all terror attacks. So where are your figures?
"Since when does a terror attack have to be controversial to be a terror attack? That's completely absurd! "
You have misunderstood. I simply meant that I agree that they are terrorism.
No...I do not need to include ALL terrorism.
Yes you do. If you are maintaining that A represents a majority of B then you need to detail B as well as A. Simple arithmetic.
"No numbers are offered to refute my assertion and evidence."
You have shown that a lot of terrorism may be perpetrated by Muslims. you have not shown that a majority of terrorism is. There is no evidence to refute.
I'm off to watch the Snowman with my daughter then drive a Xmas Eve bus: Drunks and snowdrifts. Merry Xmas everyone.
BC,
Thank you for clearing up that misunderstanding. It was inconceivable to me that anyone would require an attack to be controversial before acknowledging it might have a terrorist nexus.
Your formula doesn't work here. I maintain that Islamofascists are terrorists and as such, have a bodycount documented in the international media. Since the media documents all terrorist incidents of significant scale, then a simple search of the media should reveal which terrorists commit the preponderance of terror in the world today.
Clearly the results demonstrate my assertion and you are welcome to challenge them with numbers and sources of your own. But it is not my responsibility to do your homework. I understand your point--I just disagree. Since when are climate change advocates required to provide equal weight to the arguments of deniers? Perhaps I should give equal time to the "truthers" that deny the facts of the 9/11 attack? I don't think so.
But I do wish you and your family all the best in this Christmas Season. Have a safe shift.
Merry Christmas to you too, BigC, and to all.
We haven’t made any progress at all.
We have agreed to that all the time. It’s almost the only thing we agree on.
You haven’t given us any evidence for your claim that other terrorist groups are responsible for less victims than your favourites (who aren’t a homogenous group). You don’t even want to discuss that legality is not the same thing as legitimacy. You simply claim that the US Army and Blackwater don’t belong on the terror list, because what they do is legal (under your law) which for you is the same as legitimate. Of course I didn’t expect you to say anything else, but you don’t even argue! I gave you some more reasons why defining terrorism is subjective (that’s putting it politely).
The numbers you supplied don’t prove anything. To throw you a bone: I won’t ask you to prove that no ordinary crimes are included (a bomb against a crowd could just be a cover-up for an ordinary murder without political background).
You can’t provide any stats for other groups, because they don’t exist. These statistics only exist for groups that target western countries. There is no Congolese group that commits terrorist acts in our countries, and that’s why most people don’t find them very worrying. I still think they are killing more people than Islamists.
You haven’t supplied anything to prove your point.
How typically Liberal. Make the other person person prove both sides of an argument.
The definition is impartial. Don't like it? Fine...provide one you like better that is based on more than just your skewed view of the universe. You haven't done so, suggesting you are unable or unwilling or lazy.
The numbers are objective--based on international media, not just western media.
I don't provide stats for other groups because my assertion is not about other groups. These are Islamic terror incidents.
Which only demonstrates that you never read them. The overwhelming number of victims here are Muslim living and dying in Muslim countries.
I would think that you would be happy about that. I did not include Congolese groups because they are not Islamist. If you have Congolese numbers that provide context to Islamist terrror, please share them.
The victims of terror that I documented are worldwide, not just oil-exporting nations as your earlier assertion. The reason you can't find numbers that point to any other class of terrorist that exceed Islamist terror is prima fascia proof of my assertion. No amount of weaseling or whining will change that.
I began this as a search for the truth and found it. If you find different truth, please share it with the rest of the class.
"I don't provide stats for other groups because my assertion is not about other groups. These are Islamic terror incidents."
You seem to have a mathematical blind spot Mike. Your assertion is indeed about other groups. You are asserting that there are less of them (or possibly that they do less terrorism) than Islamists. I'll put it in algebra for you:
a = all terrorism
b = Islamic terrorism
Your statement is that b > a/2
In order to arrive at such a conclusion you also need
c = non-Islamic terrorism
Without that your statement remains unproven.
Some examples of non-Islamic terrorism for you (by no means an exhaustive list)
The Russian crushing of the Chechen independence movement.
The Lord's Liberation Army in Uganda.
Chinese crushing of Tibetan and Uyghar nationalism.
The deliberate and calculated mis-application of UN sanctions intended to force compliance with UN resolutions by the government of Iraq. The sanctions were explicitly used to force the standing down of it's president. A million people, half of them children were murdered by this action. Controversial? Yes. But it fits every bit of your definition.
You have successfully proved that a lot of terrorists are Islamic. That is very different from proving that the majority of them are.
Oh no, I only want you to prove YOUR statement. Saying that Islamist terrorism is responsible for the highest body count is the same as saying that Congolese terrorism is responsible for fewer victims than the Islamist one. Prove it then.
Your assertion is a comparison of Islamist terror vs. terror with other motives. For instance Congolese, or indeed ANY OTHER sort of terrorism.
I suggest you read my sentence (the one you quoted). I know that most of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims. But the reason why you (and I) feel threatened by Islamist terrorism is that they don’t kill Muslims in Muslim countries exclusively. A minority of their victims are western passengers of public transport, planes, or people who happen to be in American skyscrapers. None of this applies to Congolese terrorists: their victims are in Congo and neighbouring countries, but not in Europe or America. Nobody who avoids East Africa needs to be concerned about his or her personal safety from Congolese terrorism.
No, I am NOT happy about that. I feel relieved that they don’t target me, but do you really think I am “happy” that they target someone else? Are you? The thought of a Congolese victim of terror is as distressing for me as the thought of a Somalian victim of terror.
It’s about time that you admit that your statement that Islamist terror is responsible for more victims than any other sort of terrorism is wrong. Instead of trying to prove it you are telling us that it is automatically true unless we prove it wrong. Come off it.
I am trying to take your “search for the truth” stuff seriously. Do you want to amend your statement by something like “terrorism that is relevant in western countries” and see if it makes sense then?
Just because neither of us has provided data on other groups, does not mean my assertion is wrong. As you and BC have both pointed out, there is a shortage of statistics on other types of terrorism today. But that is exactly the data you both demand I provide before you accept my assertion. I suggest that you are missing the importance of the absence of data.
Where is the data for comparison? Either the incidents you claim are not happening in the numbers that you believe, or the media is deliberately ignoring them. Except you have to be a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut to believe the truth is being concealed and the reality is there is no advantage to the media concealing other attacks
Momo offers an argument that we in the west are only focused on attacks in oil-exporting nations. But that is easily dismissed when examining the locations of the attacks many of them taking place where there is no oil at all. Add to the fact that the statistics are based on international media, not western media. So there is no "western bias" involved.
Since you are incapable of doing you own research. Here's your stats on the Congolese terrorism compared to terrorism in Iraq
Terrorist incidents 1996 - 2006
Iraq: 4,680
Congo: 2
You're right. The numbers are so close I don't know how I could have been mistaken.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_ter_act_196_inc-terrorist-acts-1968-2006-incidences
You still haven't got the hang of statistics have you Mike? There are two possibilities here:
Firstly that there was actually more "terrorism" in iraq than in Congo during that period.
The second possibility is that no-one who reports these things gives a toss about what happens in Congo.
This is of course ignoring possible controversy over the definition of terrorism as I suspect that at least some of the 4,680 incidents in Iraq were in fact attacks on a foreign invasion and occupation force - in other words not terrorism at all.
Post new comment