Not all Muslims are Terrorists!

[CapnAwesome]

Whoa whoa whoa Mister Agenda, before you continue on I think you need to supply the quote of somebody saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Something that you said is being said in mass apparently. I just went through the first 10 google pages of "All Muslims are terrorists" and every single page was exactly what I said, people debunking that claim. However I don't think it can really be called debunking if nobody is actually saying it.

[Mister Agenda]

If Islam (or some other new religion) hadn't come along, the region would be largely Orthodox Christian. It would still be tribal, the women would still be covering their heads. If their political history remained roughly the same (we still deposed the Shah's predecessor, we still supported the rural tribes against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we still deposed the secular strongman ruling Iraq, etc.), you think we wouldn't be having these problems if the region were predominantly Christian?

If they were christian maybe they would have gone through both the reformation and the enlightenment. They also probably wouldn't be using the example of Muhammad to enslave religious minorities around them, as ISIS does. That is a direct out growth of Islam. I'll never understand Atheist Islamophiles.

Funny, it didn't reach the Middle East the first time, but would have through the magic of Christian geopolitics? Good point about the Christians of Mo's era not enslaving the religious minorities around them, they were a shining example to modern day Muslims. If only they would look to the Crusading popes instead of their prophet.

ISIS is a direct outgrowth of the USA deposing Saddam Hussein and throwing his Bathist Party bureacratic and military personnel on the street to later perform a critical role in forming ISIL. It literally would not exist if we had not invaded Iraq. Just like the Taliban would likely not exist if the USA had not supported the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Also, we militarily support the regime that is the primary exporter of Wahabbism, not to mention supporting it financially with oil revenues.

The parallel history in which the Middle East and North Africa have fewer fanatics is the one where we didn't fuck with them over and over again for the last eighty years.

I'm not an Islamophile. I just like the things people say to be accurate.

[CapnAwesome]

Racism? What the fuck does race have to do with this?

There seems to be a high correlation of entire demographics being under suspicion for the actions of a few when the demographic is mainly non-European in ethnicity. White Christians can kill a roomful of black people or blow up an abortion clinic or shoot up schools without calls to profile whites or Christians.

But if it's a swarthy-skinned or slant-eyed foriegner, the response is...different. His race won't be questioned, but his nationality or religion will be used as a basis to drum up hate. But it's nothing to do with complexion. Honest.

Except when you consider the Chechens or Bosnian muslims, most of whom are whiter than me. This is another thing, it's the people defending Islam who want to make it all about race. Just like with my opening quote, it's an easy debate point but largely debating against something that isn't being said. Very few (and on this one I won't say none) people have racial motivations for criticizing Islam. I think for liberal people in the west it's practically impossible to defend Islams radical right-wing ideology, so instead they defend them on the grounds of race, political correctness and against things that nobody is saying to make the debate easier for themselves.

[CapnAwesome]

Whoa whoa whoa Mister Agenda, before you continue on I think you need to supply the quote of somebody saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Something that you said is being said in mass apparently. I just went through the first 10 google pages of "All Muslims are terrorists" and every single page was exactly what I said, people debunking that claim. However I don't think it can really be called debunking if nobody is actually saying it.

Just requoting before you get too off track. You said how you'd have to be willfully ignorant to miss this. So it should be easy to come up with. Instead I think you need to admit that this argument is a strawman.

[CapnAwesome]

If they were christian maybe they would have gone through both the reformation and the enlightenment. They also probably wouldn't be using the example of Muhammad to enslave religious minorities around them, as ISIS does. That is a direct out growth of Islam. I'll never understand Atheist Islamophiles.

Funny, it didn't reach the Middle East the first time, but would have through the magic of Christian geopolitics? Good point about the Christians of Mo's era not enslaving the religious minorities around them, they were a shining example to modern day Muslims. If only they would look to the Crusading popes instead of their prophet.

ISIS is a direct outgrowth of the USA deposing Saddam Hussein and throwing his Bathist Party bureacratic and military personnel on the street to later perform a critical role in forming ISIL. It literally would not exist if we had not invaded Iraq. Just like the Taliban would likely not exist if the USA had not supported the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Also, we militarily support the regime that is the primary exporter of Wahabbism, not to mention supporting it financially with oil revenues.

The parallel history in which the Middle East and North Africa have fewer fanatics is the one where we didn't fuck with them over and over again for the last eighty years.

I'm not an Islamophile. I just like the things people say to be accurate.

You expect Muslims back in the day to be affected by the Christian reformation??? What??

[Mister Agenda]

Whoa whoa whoa Mister Agenda, before you continue on I think you need to supply the quote of somebody saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Something that you said is being said in mass apparently. I just went through the first 10 google pages of "All Muslims are terrorists" and every single page was exactly what I said, people debunking that claim. However I don't think it can really be called debunking if nobody is actually saying it.

Well, it's a pretty stupid thing to say, and super easy to debunk. I don't dispute that most people qualify the claim, amusingly in practically the same way it's rebutted (not all Muslims are terrorists, but...) If you think about it, one would expect many more people to take the trouble to debunk it than to say it in the first place. It's low-hanging fruit. And saying people are terrorists because they are Muslim is an indirect way of trying to put the guilt for terrorism on all Muslims.

I don't go to Free Republic or Town Hall during working hours, maybe you could try the experiment of defending Muslims as not all terrorists there?

[Mister Agenda]

There seems to be a high correlation of entire demographics being under suspicion for the actions of a few when the demographic is mainly non-European in ethnicity. White Christians can kill a roomful of black people or blow up an abortion clinic or shoot up schools without calls to profile whites or Christians.

But if it's a swarthy-skinned or slant-eyed foriegner, the response is...different. His race won't be questioned, but his nationality or religion will be used as a basis to drum up hate. But it's nothing to do with complexion. Honest.

Except when you consider the Chechens or Bosnian muslims, most of whom are whiter than me. This is another thing, it's the people defending Islam who want to make it all about race. Just like with my opening quote, it's an easy debate point but largely debating against something that isn't being said. Very few (and on this one I won't say none) people have racial motivations for criticizing Islam. I think for liberal people in the west it's practically impossible to defend Islams radical right-wing ideology, so instead they defend them on the grounds of race, political correctness and against things that nobody is saying to make the debate easier for themselves.

See? I'm not racist, there are some white people in the group that I'm expressing contempt for!

[Mister Agenda]

Funny, it didn't reach the Middle East the first time, but would have through the magic of Christian geopolitics? Good point about the Christians of Mo's era not enslaving the religious minorities around them, they were a shining example to modern day Muslims. If only they would look to the Crusading popes instead of their prophet.

ISIS is a direct outgrowth of the USA deposing Saddam Hussein and throwing his Bathist Party bureacratic and military personnel on the street to later perform a critical role in forming ISIL. It literally would not exist if we had not invaded Iraq. Just like the Taliban would likely not exist if the USA had not supported the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Also, we militarily support the regime that is the primary exporter of Wahabbism, not to mention supporting it financially with oil revenues.

The parallel history in which the Middle East and North Africa have fewer fanatics is the one where we didn't fuck with them over and over again for the last eighty years.

I'm not an Islamophile. I just like the things people say to be accurate.

You expect Muslims back in the day to be affected by the Christian reformation??? What??

You sure use a lot of sarcasm for someone who doesn't recognize it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll wait until you support your 99% claim first, because I think it's horseshit, and the statistics seem to bear out my opinion.  You've been asked a few times already to support it, and you haven't. Until you do so, you asking anyone else to do so reeks of horseshit too.

Um, no. You are wrong I have given this link out 2 other times, and each time I do, the people ignore it and don't post back.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te...ents,_2015

At the very top of that page is this disclaimer:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2015)

How in the world do you expect to have credibility when you cite a source so shaky that it admits it before you've read the first word? Did you not see that disclaimer? Or -- and this is my suspicion -- you saw it and kept on reading, and once you discovered that the data supported your bias, you decided that the obvious concerns that the editors there have were unfounded?

Sorry, I want impartial data, not cooked books.

Here's what I've found, for America:

This listing by the FBI of attacks going back to 1980 clearly demonstrates that less than 99% of all terrorist attacks in America were committed by Muslims. You'll notice that I went directly to a source which is required by law to collate ALL these statistics.

According to Global Research:

Terrorism Is a Real Threat … But the Threat to the U.S. from Muslim Terrorists Has Been Exaggerated

An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data:



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.

(Loon Watch also notes that less than 1% of terror attacks in Europe were carried out by Muslims.)

You can read the entire article here.

So on the one hand we have a government source legally bound to collate all the data on these incidents, and on the other we have you waving around a wiki article that is disputed by its own authors. Forgive me for thinking that your argument is horseshit ... but it is.

[Napoléon]

If Islam (or some other new religion) hadn't come along, the region would be largely Orthodox Christian. It would still be tribal, the women would still be covering their heads. If their political history remained roughly the same (we still deposed the Shah's predecessor, we still supported the rural tribes against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we still deposed the secular strongman ruling Iraq, etc.), you think we wouldn't be having these problems if the region were predominantly Christian?

Yeah, actually I do. I think it's outright ridiculous to say we would. A group like ISIS wouldn't have cropped up if not for Islam. To suggest so is fucking ludicrous.