Quote: I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate their ''holy'' book.

I don't hate you, I just hate your stupidity.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:49 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Saying terrorism, especially from the likes of ISIS or Al-Queada is not motivated by religion is willful ignorance. It is wishful thinking to think Islamic terrorism is not motivated by religion; especially considering they justify their violence with verses of the Qu'ran and attempt to enforce their Sharia on other people. Most ISIS recruits from the West were university educated.

Look at the sources, you insult to your avatar. As long as you can't be arsed to check your assumptions collected from dubious web sources against real facts and figures, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:51 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 5:30 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Economic/social class section.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism

Yeah, as I said before in another thread. Your sources need some serious work. But I guess, you won't be the one doing it, since serious sources and being critical about your sources contradicts your bias. And bias is ultimately the one and only purpose of all the threads you're creating. WikiIslam is as trustworthy as Conservapedia. From their own statement about trying very hard to look like the real wiki.

Quote:Is WikiIslam a branch of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation?

No, we are not in any way related to or endorsed by these organizations. Our only commonality is our use of the same Mediawiki software which is also used by many other wiki websites.

Wiki-Islam is a site which debunks Islamic dogma - the only issue people have with it are mostly, not surprisingly, Theists (Muslims).

Likewise, the leaked MI5 file Radicalisation Of Muslims In The United Kingdom – A Developed Understanding found that more than 60% of British Islamic terrorists were middle-class.

So really, it seems to me that you are in a state of denial; I don't know why you find it hard to believe that Islam drives people, regardless of their socio-economic status to terrorism, especially considering some of the most profilic Islamic terrorists were middle-upper class, and their sourcing is met through people who share the same ideology.

Keep on believing ''poverty'' causes terrorism, it's incredibly weak.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:53 am)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote: I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate their ''holy'' book.

I don't hate you, I just hate your stupidity.

I detest your ignorance --- you are in a state of denial.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:38 am)comet Wrote: yup, Islam is 500 years behind Christianity. The problem I have with the Jewish religion and Islam religion is that they are Jewish and Muslim first. Not regular people first, not my neighbor , but "My Religion's people" first.

Most Jews are Atheists, but culturally identify with the title of a Jew, they are more-so Zionists now.

I agree, Islam is behind Christianity. To deny this is to accept ignorance.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:58 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Likewise, the leaked MI5 file Radicalisation Of Muslims In The United Kingdom – A Developed Understanding found that more than 60% of British Islamic terrorists were middle-class.

Source. Fucking source, to check if it's not on the same level as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Who fucking leaked it and who fucking reported on it? Where's the document to be read?

(June 13, 2015 at 8:03 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 7:58 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Likewise, the leaked MI5 file Radicalisation Of Muslims In The United Kingdom – A Developed Understanding found that more than 60% of British Islamic terrorists were middle-class.

Source. Fucking source, to check if it's not on the same level as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Who fucking leaked it and who fucking reported on it? Where's the document to be read?

The Independent used a source from counter-terrorism research:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...54062.html

''Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressed''

The MI5 report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-file.html

Before a certain someone says ''right wing source (2nd link), invalid'' I will point out that the article was written by a Muslim, journalist Abul Taher.

This is all pushing aside that Al-Queada was led by a freaking millionaire.

I am amazed that some people will accept that privileged Christians in the Southern States are radical, yet can't handle the idea of privileged Muslims being more radical. Ideology corrupts.

(June 13, 2015 at 8:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Before a certain someone says ''right wing source (2nd link), invalid'' I will point out that the article was written by a Muslim, journalist Abul Taher.

Right, as usual you don't dig any deeper than the original article. I'm not surprised actually. But I took the liberty to look up the actual study of this professor Kamaldeep Bhui, they are talking about in the independent article. That's the rather interesting bit about it, since it talks about 2 point fucking 4 percent of the sample group having radical ideas.

Quote:Results

2.4% of people showed some sympathy for violent protest and terrorist acts. Sympathy was more likely to be articulated by the under 20s, those in full time education rather than employment, those born in the UK, those speaking English at home, and high earners (>£75,000 a year). People with poor self-reported health were less likely to show sympathies for violent protest and terrorism. Anxiety and depressive symptoms, adverse life events and socio-political attitudes showed no associations.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0090718

There goes your majority claim down the toilet.

Secondly, you probably know of the general bias of the dailymail. Also, you probably didn't check up on the background of the only person, who is interviewed by this Taher character: Anthony Glees. Please do.

Both articlkes of course don't mention a percentage of radicals. The above study does. To repeat it, 2,4 percents.

Thirdly, Taher doesn't give a title for the supposedly leaked document. Secret: UK eyes only is a generic classification that doesn't help in any way, shape or form to find the document in question.

And last, they all talk about the UK and about the UK only. There's nothing giving an indication about other countries.

(June 13, 2015 at 8:44 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 8:09 am)TheMessiah Wrote: Before a certain someone says ''right wing source (2nd link), invalid'' I will point out that the article was written by a Muslim, journalist Abul Taher.

Right, as usual you don't dig any deeper than the original article. I'm not surprised actually. But I took the liberty to look up the actual study of this professor Kamaldeep Bhui, they are talking about in the independent article. That's the rather interesting bit about it, since it talks about 2 point fucking 4 percent of the sample group having radical ideas.

Quote:Results

2.4% of people showed some sympathy for violent protest and terrorist acts. Sympathy was more likely to be articulated by the under 20s, those in full time education rather than employment, those born in the UK, those speaking English at home, and high earners (>£75,000 a year). People with poor self-reported health were less likely to show sympathies for violent protest and terrorism. Anxiety and depressive symptoms, adverse life events and socio-political attitudes showed no associations.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0090718

There goes your majority claim down the toilet.

Secondly, you probably know of the general bias of the dailymail. Also, you probably didn't check up on the background of the only person, who is interviewed by this Taher character: Anthony Glees.

Both articlkes of course don't mention a percentage of radicals. The above study does. To repeat it, 2,4 percents.

Yeah, it's clear you haven't read my posts, and are instead arguing with an imaginary version of myself.

I did not say most Muslims sympathasize with terrorism; they don't, my claim was that many Muslims, especially in Britain believe in blasphemy and are willing to use violence --- that doesn't mean they're all Bin Laden supporters, but they are considerably more radical than the non-Muslim population. 

Furthermore, you unsurprisingly left out the conclusion of that study: Youth, wealth, and being in education rather than employment were risk factors.. It is specifically pointing out that privilege/wealth makes these people more likely to be extreme.

Here is more data to debunk the poverty claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_te..._terrorism

Quote:According to Scott Atran, a NATO researcher studying suicide terrorism, the available evidence contradicts a number of simplistic explanations for the motivations of terrorists,[7] including mental instability, poverty, and feelings of humiliation.

Forensic psychiatrist and former foreign service officer Marc Sageman made an "intensive study of biographical data on 172 participants in the jihad," in his book Understanding Terror Networks.[8] He concluded social networks, the "tight bonds of family and friendship", rather than emotional and behavioral disorders of "poverty, trauma, madness, [or] ignorance", inspired alienated young Muslims to join the jihad and kill.[9]

Author Lawrence Wright described the characteristic of "displacement" of members of the most famous Islamic terrorist group, al-Qaeda:

What the recruits tended to have in common – besides their urbanity, their cosmopolitan backgrounds, their education, their facility with languages, and their computer skills – was displacement. Most who joined the jihad did so in a country other than the one in which they were reared. They were Algerians living in expatriate enclaves in France,Moroccans in Spain, or Yemenis in Saudi Arabia. Despite their accomplishments, they had little standing in the host societies where they lived."[10]

Scholar Olivier Roy describes the background of the hundreds of global (as opposed to local) terrorists who were incarcerated or killed and for whom authorities have records, as being surprising for their Westernized background; for the lack of Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans "coming to avenge what is going on in their country"; their lack of religiosity before being "born again" in a foreign country; the high percentage of converts to Islam among them; their "de-territorialized backgrounds" – "For instance, they may be born in a country, then educated in another country, then go to fight in a third country and take refuge in a fourth country"; their nontraditional belief that jihad is permanent, global, and "not linked with a specific territory."[11]

The claim of poverty is not only being debunked in academic circles but it is an attempt, probably intentional to move away focus from Islam as an ideology - it utterly fails to explain why the elite in Islamic countries support terrorism (e.g. Saudi, Iran, Pakistan) or why militant Islamic groups are led by rich men.

(June 13, 2015 at 8:50 am)TheMessiah Wrote: I did not say most Muslims sympathasize with terrorism; they don't, my claim was that many Muslims, especially in Britain believe in blasphemy and are willing to use violence --- that doesn't mean they're all Bin Laden supporters, but they are considerably more radical than the non-Muslim population.

Based on what, since to point to the study of Kamaldeep Bhui and others again: 2.4% of people showed some sympathy for violent protest and terrorist acts.

To repeat: Violent protests and terrorist acts. 2,4 percent. The very study you helped me find by posting your article links. Either you have no reading comprehension or you're simply unwilling to read what doesn't confirm your bias.