Not all Muslims are Terrorists!

[Napoléon]

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

I'm only addressing this because you whinged about people ignoring it.

This is not proof that 99% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by muslims. It's just not. For one, as Parkers Tan has already pointed out, the article itself suggests it's unreliable. For two, unless it's a well estabilished wiki article with no problems like the one brought up in the article headline, I'm not inclined to find it a good source. For three, it doesn't even support your assertion of 99% anyway. For four, myself and Cato have already posted stats that seem to contradict your own, self-admitted-untrustworthy article.

So with that, carry on this stupid discussion. I'm done.

[thehedglin]

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.

Even if I included every abortion clinic bombing and racially motivated mass shooting in the list of terror attacks in the last decade, do you deny that the list would still remain fundamentally skewed? There does appear to be a correlation between the doctrines of Islam, and certain types of violent attacks, even if we do not know precisely why. Do you deny this?

[Napoléon]

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.

Guess you've never heard the term "redneck" then, and are completely oblivious to the connotations that has.

But let's carry on pretending like this is a race issue and that people are unfairly critical of Islam.

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.

You're right, it's not.

If I see a brown girl walking about and she's wearing 'western' clothing, perfectly 'assimilated' if you like into British culture, I wouldn't bat an eye. I see one wearing full hijab on the streets of Birmingham and I think "wtf, you're not in the middle east, why are you wearing that shit".

But that's got fuck all to do with race. It has to do with the stupid religion that dictates they wear such a thing. You could argue 'culture', has a lot more to do with it perhaps, but not race.

Can we please stop with this bullshit side-tracking deflection of the issue. This is not about race.

[Napoléon]

Even if I included every abortion clinic bombing and racially motivated mass shooting in the list of terror attacks in the last decade, do you deny that the list would still remain fundamentally skewed? There does appear to be a correlation between the doctrines of Islam, and certain types of violent attacks, even if we do not know precisely why. Do you deny this?

He wants to muddy the waters as much as he can and say it's about race, when no-one but him is actually talking about race or referring to it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The question (if I may interject) is, does 'Islam' as a religion and/or as a sociological-political force exacerbate or constrain extremism, or indeed have no effect?

There are probably at least 3 questions involved there we need to deconstruct/

1. What is 'Islam'? A religion? A structure for a government and/or state? Something far wider such as the caliphate pseudo-nation of old?
2. What do we class as extremism and why? Or indeed terrorism?
3. How do our conclusions in 1. Inform our conclusions in 2 (if any)?

I don't think introducing race into this as a topic is going to achieve anything unless we can pinpoint a good definition in which the glove fits.

[Napoléon]

The question (if I may interject) is, does 'Islam' as a religion and/or as a sociological-political force exacerbate or constrain extremism, or indeed have no effect?

Well, I think anyone who thinks it's the latter is a scruffy-looking nerfherder.

I bid you my leave, oh wondrous thread.

[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.

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?

You said earlier that you have to be willfully ignorant to have not heard that quote and now can't find a single example of somebody saying it? Pretty weak sauce.

[CapnAwesome]

I'd like to think that every time I post that challenge Mister Agenda is frantically searching through google page after google page scratching his head and going "No, somebody has to have said it, we can't just all have been replying to nothing"

[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.

Even if I included every abortion clinic bombing and racially motivated mass shooting in the list of terror attacks in the last decade, do you deny that the list would still remain fundamentally skewed? There does appear to be a correlation between the doctrines of Islam, and certain types of violent attacks, even if we do not know precisely why. Do you deny this?

The perpertrators of most violent terrorist attacks on US soil in the last 30 years or the last 10 have been white non-muslims, so yes, I do deny it.

[Mister Agenda]

I'd like to think that every time I post that challenge Mister Agenda is frantically searching through google page after google page scratching his head and going "No, somebody has to have said it, we can't just all have been replying to nothing"

Sadly, I just went to lunch and have to spare a little itme for work, not to mention my work system blocks most sites that would be good for such garnering.

Say, if you don't have such restrictions, why don't you go to Townhall.com and tell 'em Muslims aren't all bad?