NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading through the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and the U.K. List of Proscribed Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and noticed that there is a dispreprotionate number of Islamic terrorist groups listed. 27 out of 42 listed by the US State Dept are Islamic terror groups, while 31 out of 49 listed by the UK are Islamic terror groups.

Another source cited by Wikipedia (Islamic Terrorism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism) states this:

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

The same wikipedia article also notes (Muslim Attitudes Toward Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism#Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism)), "In parliamentary election of January 2006, 57% of Palestinians voted for Hamas[10], which is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, United States, Canada, and the European Union and responsible for a number of attacks against Israeli civilians." (Original BBC source here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm)) In addition, "A 2004 Pew survey revealed that Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable." (Original sources here (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206) and here (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-7-2003_pg4_6))

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?

If this was the 60s there's be a disporportionate listing of Marxist/Maoist groups instead. It's all about "What Scares Americans Today?"

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?
Oppressive western foreign policy. Whether it being supporting Israel in its horrible actions against Palestine, the support of puppet governments across the middle east that oppress their people, or the occupation of Iraq. Im guessing those things among others leads to muslim terror

If this was the 60s there's be a disporportionate listing of Marxist/Maoist groups instead. It's all about "What Scares Americans Today?"

Why is it about what scares Americans? The UK has listed more Islamic groups than the United States.

Oppressive western foreign policy. Whether it being supporting Israel in its horrible actions against Palestine, the support of puppet governments across the middle east that oppress their people, or the occupation of Iraq. Im guessing those things among others leads to muslim terror

Perhaps you should go back and check the lists. Most of the Islamic terror groups are internal in Islamic countries rather than international ones striking out against Western policy. This is Muslims fighting Muslims, not Muslims fighting Westerners.

Quick to blame the West contraty to the facts though, aren't we?

What causes the connection between Christanity and terror? Or Judism and terror? Or Maxism and terror? Or what have you and terror?

Since terrorist groups spawn in every region with very religion, perhaps a better way to frame the question would be to ignore the damn religion and ask what commonalities are present?

Its radically religious fundamentalist extremists thats the problem, not Islam.

What causes the connection between Christanity and terror? Or Judism and terror? Or Maxism and terror? Or what have you and terror?

Since terrorist groups spawn in every region with very religion, perhaps a better way to frame the question would be to ignore the damn religion and ask what commonalities are present?

Maybe you're avoiding the statistics. There is a dispreportionate number of Islamic terror groups. There isn't an equal connection between Christianity, Judaism, Marxism, etc. and terror. Although, communist groups come in second to Islamic groups.

No one is saying they don't occur in every religion. What is being pointed out is that there is a dispreportionate number of them in Islam. You've avoided addressing that.

Perhaps you should go back and check the lists. Most of the Islamic terror groups are internal in Islamic countries rather than international ones striking out against Western policy. This is Muslims fighting Muslims, not Muslims fighting Westerners.

Quick to blame the West contraty to the facts though, aren't we?
Muslims fighting Muslims who oppress them and just happen to be supported by westerners. quick to make all muslims look like terrorists with this thread to fit your zionist agenda arent we?

Its radically religious fundamentalist extremists thats the problem, not Islam.

So, why are there more Islamic terror groups than terror groups of other religious fundamentalists? And why is the second largest category of terror groups communist terror groups rather than other religious fundamental groups?

Of course religious extremism is bad, and causes these things in part, but the lists given by the US and UK would dispute the claim that terror is a result of religious extremism in general. Only Islam fits that criteria, and the second largest grouping doesn't.

Maybe you're avoiding the statistics. There is a dispreportionate number of Islamic terror groups. There isn't an equal connection between Christianity, Judaism, Marxism, etc. and terror. Although, communist groups come in second to Islamic groups.

No one is saying they don't occur in every religion. What is being pointed out is that there is a dispreportionate number of them in Islam. You've avoided addressing that.
No, you're avoiding the trend. Right NOW there is a lot of Islamic terrorist groups. In the past there weren't so many. So saying that Islam is causing it is a very, very silly proposition. In the 1920's the most active groups were either Christian or Buddhist/Shinto.

It changes and trying to frame it as the fault of one particular religion misses the point compleatly.

Muslims fighting Muslims who oppress them and just happen to be supported by westerners. quick to make all muslims look like terrorists with this thread to fit your zionist agenda arent we?

Which terror group on the list are you referring to? Which terror group is Muslims fighting against Musilms who are supported by Westerners? And, why is the West to blame for Muslims who oppress other muslims?

And no, I never said anything about all Muslims. I'm pointing out the fact that there is a correlation between Islam and terror. So far, it can't be blamed on the West, considering that the majority of it is not directed toward the West but toward other Muslims.

No, you're avoiding the trend. Right NOW there is a lot of Islamic terrorist groups. In the past there weren't so many. So saying that Islam is causing it is a very, very silly proposition. In the 1920's the most active groups were either Christian or Buddhist/Shinto.

Oh, do you have the lists from the 1920s to support that? I mean, any evidence that the trend has changed to support your claim?

No one is saying they don't occur in every religion. What is being pointed out is that there is a dispreportionate number of them in Islam. You've avoided addressing that.
"Disproportionate" is a statistical term, you know. If you're going to talk about correlation (and imply causation), you need to get out the maths.

As for me, I would say that Islamist groups have gotten a lot more attention from both these countries' governments. I'd be pretty sure that in the Seventies there would have been a "disproportionate" number of communist terror groups in the lead.

Which terror group is Muslims fighting against Musilms who are supported by Westerners?
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded virtually for that reason...

You'll like this thread here, dude. Have a read:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

Oh, do you have the lists from the 1920s to support that? I mean, any evidence that the trend has changed to support your claim?
Lists? No.

Knowledge that you had the fun of the IRA and the Basque fighting during that time. In Japan, a lot of the terror that brought the military to power was at the hands of very radical state Shintoism or a sect of Buddhist thought. Of all the "terror" being tossed around at that time I have never read of Islamic terorrist.

Oh, and don't forget the Marxists. Red scare and all that.

It's not really Islam, it's the fact that the region has been the target of wars since time immemorial, it's a hot, nasty shithole to live in (in places,) and it's a focal point for trade and/or natural resources.

Just remember though, that the Middle East was a beacon of culture through much of the Dark Ages. During thoose times, they probably thought Christianity was a source for violence and barbarism.

Need I remind you correlation is not causation.

There is a strong correlation between lemonade sales and the number of deaths by drowning as well, it means nothing.

"Disproportionate" is a statistical term, you know. If you're going to talk about correlation (and imply causation), you need to get out the maths.

As for me, I would say that Islamist groups have gotten a lot more attention from both these countries' governments. I'd be pretty sure that in the Seventies there would have been a "disproportionate" number of communist terror groups in the lead.

Thats a fair explanation for why there is a high correlation today, simply that the governments pay more attention to them. I'm not sure it explains everything, but it is definately a part of it.

Which terror group on the list are you referring to? Which terror group is Muslims fighting against Musilms who are supported by Westerners? And, why is the West to blame for Muslims who oppress other muslims?

And no, I never said anything about all Muslims. I'm pointing out the fact that there is a correlation between Islam and terror. So far, it can't be blamed on the West, considering that the majority of it is not directed toward the West but toward other Muslims.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is supported by the US.The government then oppresses its people who cant change the government because it is backed by the government leading people to move to terror. This is also the case in Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

Lists? No.

Knowledge that you had the fun of the IRA and the Basque fighting during that time. In Japan, a lot of the terror that brought the military to power was at the hands of very radical state Shintoism or a sect of Buddhist thought. Of all the "terror" being tossed around at that time I have never read of Islamic terorrist.

Oh, and don't forget the Marxists. Red scare and all that.

Communist movements, Basque independence groups, and Irish groups are still pretty well represented in these terror lists. The problem is without any real categorization of what a 'terrorist' is its difficult to determine the statistics regarding terror groups back then. I'd be interested in seeing the paradigm change, but terror is hard to measure without some (generally arbitrary) criteira to define it.

Need I remind you correlation is not causation.

There is a strong correlation between lemonade sales and the number of deaths by drowning as well, it means nothing.

Except here, we have causation to a degree. These are "Islamic terrorist groups" by definition. If you read the charters that they hold, this is what they affirm. They aren't terror groups who just happen to have large Islamic percentages of members or the like.

We don't call the IRA a Catholic terror group although its predominately Catholic, for example. We define them along their goals and criteria, and these Muslim terror groups are distinctly Islamic by admission.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In 1947, the British considered the Israelis terrorists. Now the Israelis consider the Palestinians terrorists for using similar tactics to attain similar ends. The correlation does exist, but it's a transient thing.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is supported by the US.The government then oppresses its people who cant change the government because it is backed by the government leading people to move to terror. This is also the case in Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

I see. Its possible, just maybe, that the Saudi people can't change the government because its a theocratic monarchy and they have no power to do so. Same with Jordan. The oppression might just be a result of the way Sharia law is applied. Or, we can blame the West for it. :rolleyes:

So, when al-Qaeda attacked the Saudi oil wells, do you believe that was an act of freedom fighters striking back against the wicked West and their Saudi lackeys?

Communist movements, Basque independence groups, and Irish groups are still pretty well represented in these terror lists. The problem is without any real categorization of what a 'terrorist' is its difficult to determine the statistics regarding terror groups back then. I'd be interested in seeing the paradigm change, but terror is hard to measure without some (generally arbitrary) criteira to define it.
I'm disappointed in you, TS. If you have no criteria to define what a terrorist is, what is this thread even about then? Just Muslim bashing?

We define them along their goals and criteria, and these Muslim terror groups are distinctly Islamic by admission.
Strictly speaking though it is Islamist, not Islamic. It's a distinct movement that fuses together politics and religion...it's not exclusively religious, and when you listen to those representing the religion itself, it actually goes against quite a lot of it.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In 1947, the British considered the Israelis terrorists. Now the Israelis consider the Palestinians terrorists for using similar tactics to attain similar ends. The correlation does exist, but it's a transient thing.

Its a trite saying. Many people consider terrorists to be freedom fighters (Soviestan), but that doesn't mean that they are not still terrorists. Nor did the British consider Israelis in general terrorists, just like the Israelis dont considered Palestinians terrorists. There were Israeli terror groups, admitted terror groups by the legitimate Israeli leaders. They were disbanded after the State of Israel gained independence. Just like Palestinian terror is officially condemned by the Palestinian Authority. The majority population in most groups is able to recognize the terrorists among them.

I'm disappointed in you, TS. If you have no criteria to define what a terrorist is, what is this thread even about then? Just Muslim bashing?

Actually I was just admitting that all criteria of this type is mostly arbitrary, not that I don't have criteria. The criteria I was using was that given by the UK and the US. Its valid and sound, but still arbitrary.

Except here, we have causation to a degree. These are "Islamic terrorist groups" by definition. If you read the charters that they hold, this is what they affirm. They aren't terror groups who just happen to have large Islamic percentages of members or the like.

We don't call the IRA a Catholic terror group although its predominately Catholic, for example. We define them along their goals and criteria, and these Muslim terror groups are distinctly Islamic by admission.
And now I'm really disappointed in you. This post is nothing but an indirect accusation (by implication) that Islam is a terrorist religion. It is religious bigotry.

I see. Its possible, just maybe, that the Saudi people can't change the government because its a theocratic monarchy and they have no power to do so. Same with Jordan. The oppression might just be a result of the way Sharia law is applied. Or, we can blame the West for it. :rolleyes:

So, when al-Qaeda attacked the Saudi oil wells, do you believe that was an act of freedom fighters striking back against the wicked West and their Saudi lackeys?
Is it so hard for you to understand that the reason those governments are in place are a result of US support and that any sort of change from within would not be tolerated by the US in the name of securing oil. This sort of policy leads to terrorism.

Actually I was just admitting that all criteria of this type is mostly arbitrary, not that I don't have criteria. The criteria I was using was that given by the UK and the US. Its valid and sound, but still arbitrary.
Then the thread is pointless. If you admit the criteria are arbitrary, you cannot use them to prove a correlation -- much less causation.

I was reading through the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and the U.K. List of Proscribed Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and noticed that there is a dispreprotionate number of Islamic terrorist groups listed. 27 out of 42 listed by the US State Dept are Islamic terror groups, while 31 out of 49 listed by the UK are Islamic terror groups.

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?It would be difficult to come up with a response, I think, that does not implicate the sources you cite.

Can we find a less partisan dataset?

Strictly speaking though it is Islamist, not Islamic. It's a distinct movement that fuses together politics and religion...it's not exclusively religious, and when you listen to those representing the religion itself, it actually goes against quite a lot of it.

I'm familiar with the term Islamist, but its a misnomer. It doesn't distinguish between Islam and something else, but rather defines a type of Islam. The American Heritage dictionary defines it thus, "An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life." So, it is Islamic. It just isn't the moderate type of Islam that Islamic apologists want to present as the "real Islam" in opposition to this extremist version.

And I think a lot of the time people sympathetic to Islam attempt to take the opinions of the moderates over those of the extremists, when both represent different, but equally justifiable, views in Islam. The extremists do just as good a job justifying their extremism as the moderates today who denounce them, as evidenced by the extreme Islamic governments and groups today, and the Islamic extremism ever since its early beginnings.

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?

An interesting question.

The cause is that due to the need for more oil these 14th century savages have got their hands on some serious dough. And have returned to their Korans. Islam is submission. We will submit, or they will kill us.

THAT is the correlation between Islam and terrorism. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of peace is either naive, or is a very useful idiot.

Other things that might have caused this would have been September 11th, 2001 (but you people blaming the West must have a pretty darned good answer on why so many CIVILIANS had to die)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/TROP.jpg

And it's not just Americans dying. Isrealis, Indians (Hindu ones anyhow), Buddists, Europeans, Africans, Asians, you name it, and one has been killed by an islamic.

Weekly Jihad Report
(6/11 - 6/17) Jihad Attacks: 51

Dead Bodies: 206

Critically Injured: 463

THAT IS WHY MUSLIMS ARE CALLED TERRORISTS.

Am I an Islamphobe? Yes. Because if they ever got their hands on me, I'd be dead right away.

Then the thread is pointless. If you admit the criteria are arbitrary, you cannot use them to prove a correlation -- much less causation.

Why not? Is that your own rule? Arbitrary criteria are judged on their validity and soundness as any other argument, and the arguments proposed by the UK and US to define their criteria are logically sound. It sure can be used to prove a correlation, just as we use arbitrary terms and definitions to prove correlations in all religious studies endeavors and social sciences.

Thats a fair explanation for why there is a high correlation today, simply that the governments pay more attention to them. I'm not sure it explains everything, but it is definately a part of it.
The bolded phrase is the only thing that is actually proven by the statistics you presented, unless you can show us the same governments' statistics on occurrence of terrorism in every religious, political, separatist, and other agenda-driven social subset in the world, we cannot use these numbers to show that Islam is more likely to be associated with terrorism than any other belief system.

As for your earlier question: Why are there so many radical Islamist terrorist groups? (I've corrected your terminology.)

Answer: It's their turn to be the pain in the world's ass. We can't all be at the front of the line at the same time, you know.

Can we find a less partisan dataset?

I know the UN has a list of terror groups as well, but I can't find it at the moment. If I remember correctly, its pretty similiar to the ones listed here. Mostly because the UN decides on whatever the individual member states decide on in the Security Council.

Wikipedia compiled a broad list of terror groups from a number of sources too, and it seems to have dispreportionate numbers of communist and islamic groups as well. Its here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_group)

The bolded phrase is the only thing that is actually proven by the statistics you presented, unless you can show us the same governments' statistics on occurrence of terrorism in every religious, political, separatist, and other agenda-driven social subset in the world, we cannot use these numbers to show that Islam is more likely to be associated with terrorism than any other belief system.

An occurance of terrorism does not equal a terrorist group, however. We can use these statistics to demonstrate that Islam has a higher correlation with terror groups than other religious bodies. Nor does the possibility that Western groups pay more attention to Islamic terror "prove" any such thing. Its just one hypothesis. I don't think its a hypothesis that can be supported any more easily than the claim that they aren't showing any bias against Islamic groups, and that they are accurate either.

I'm familiar with the term Islamist, but its a misnomer. It doesn't distinguish between Islam and something else, but rather defines a type of Islam. The American Heritage dictionary defines it thus, "An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life." So, it is Islamic. It just isn't the moderate type of Islam that Islamic apologists want to present as the "real Islam" in opposition to this extremist version.

And I think a lot of the time people sympathetic to Islam attempt to take the opinions of the moderates over those of the extremists, when both represent different, but equally justifiable, views in Islam. The extremists do just as good a job justifying their extremism as the moderates today who denounce them, as evidenced by the extreme Islamic governments and groups today, and the Islamic extremism ever since its early beginnings.
Whereas you would rather ignore the existence of moderate and liberal Muslims in order to paint Islam as a terrorist religion?

Is that why you reject the term "Islamist" which, in this context, would at least have the benefit of identifying a violent subset of the Muslim population?

What you are doing is like saying, since all radical rightwing neocons are Americans, then we'll just call them Americans and denounce them as such, while ignoring the nearly 50% of Americans who oppose the neocon agenda.

:rolleyes:

Halfbreed']An interesting question.

The cause is that due to the need for more oil these 14th century savages have got their hands on some serious dough. And have returned to their Korans. Islam is submission. We will submit, or they will kill us.

THAT is the correlation between Islam and terrorism. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of peace is either naive, or is a very useful idiot.

Other things that might have caused this would have been September 11th, 2001 (but you people blaming the West must have a pretty darned good answer on why so many CIVILIANS had to die)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/TROP.jpg

And it's not just Americans dying. Isrealis, Indians (Hindu ones anyhow), Buddists, Europeans, Africans, Asians, you name it, and one has been killed by an islamic.



THAT IS WHY MUSLIMS ARE CALLED TERRORISTS.

Am I an Islamphobe? Yes. Because if they ever got their hands on me, I'd be dead right away.

Ah, a most honest and direct answer to the question. Now, you can protect yourself by firebombing the nearest mosque in your home state and capping anyone who runs out of it. After all if they're all terrorists by definition, you'd be doing the country a favor.

Whereas you would rather ignore the existence of moderate and liberal Muslims in order to paint Islam as a terrorist religion?

Is that why you reject the term "Islamist" which, in this context, would at least have the benefit of identifying a violent subset of the Muslim population?

I reject the term Islamist due to the history of its usage, actually. It was developed in the late 19th century as a purjorative just like Mohammadean and only revived recently to refer to extremists. However, by definition, they are still Islamic. And its unfair to extremist Muslims to use a 19th century purjorative to refer to them. The fact is, they are just as much a valid and historical part of Islam as the moderates, and should be called respectfully "Islamic" rather than via the use of a purjorative.

What you are doing is like saying, since all radical rightwing neocons are Americans, then we'll just call them Americans and denounce them as such, while ignoring the nearly 50% of Americans who oppose the neocon agenda.

:rolleyes:

It would actually be logically correct. They are Americans, by definition. And if an outsider said "why is there such a large percentage of radical rightwing neocons in America" they would be asking a good question.

An occurance of terrorism does not equal a terrorist group, however. We can use these statistics to demonstrate that Islam has a higher correlation with terror groups than other religious bodies. Nor does the possibility that Western groups pay more attention to Islamic terror "prove" any such thing. Its just one hypothesis. I don't think its a hypothesis that can be supported any more easily than the claim that they aren't showing any bias against Islamic groups, and that they are accurate either.
You're equivocating. If the data are based on arbitrary criteria, they can prove nothing. I could easily use arbitrary criteria to show a statistical correlation between Israel and reports of space alien abductions, or between men who wear striped pants and volcanic eruptions.

If the data are based on arbitrary criteria, then the data are arbitrary, and they serve no purpose but to dress up an anti-Muslim rant. If you want to lower yourself to the level of open bigotry, go ahead, but please don't insult us by pretending that's not what you are doing. That would put you in a category of poster I would rather not see you in.

Communist movements, Basque independence groups, and Irish groups are still pretty well represented in these terror lists. The problem is without any real categorization of what a 'terrorist' is its difficult to determine the statistics regarding terror groups back then. I'd be interested in seeing the paradigm change, but terror is hard to measure without some (generally arbitrary) criteira to define it.
I use the general notion of using attacks on non-military targets/or particular people in order to achive demands or goals that would normally would be ignored.

And using that, yes, there have been a change in the makeup of terorrists groups. Islamic ones are just the latest ones. Like I said, we're better off looking at the simularities between the groups and not, as you're attempting to do, blaime ONE religion as the source of all terror or even state that it has produced more.

Hell, if you go back to the reformation you had Catholic terrorist groups (Guy Fawkes anyone?).

Colonialism/Imperialism

Seriously.

any place where people are denied the right to autonomy and self rule when they represent a historical society....then a fringe of people will reach for guns, and a fringe of those people will go beyond militias to attacking "authority" on any front that exposes itself.

This does not excuse terrorism, but I think it explains it better. Most Moslems are oblivious of any finer points to their faith which might possibly endorse terrorism. People who _want_ to kill other people indiscriminantly but yet claim it is justified will reach for whatever religion is handiest.

The IRA reached to Catholicism, the UDF to Protestanism, Hamas to Shi'ite Islam, the Moslem Brotherhood to Sunni Islam. These groups all have political goals which they refer to religion regarding because religion is one of the defining elements of whatever culture they are fighting for greater autonomy for.

It is interesting that the secular Iraqi guerillas have reached to Baathist fascism and chauvinistic ethnocentricism as their "religion"....people need beliefs that fill this "slot" in the human psyche as part of their motivation and justification.

Sadly, that makes most terrorist movements very difficult to eradicate because the tensions that motivate people to such desperate rage are founded in nearly unchangeable political realities. I think the only reason there isn't a Tibetan terrorist group is because the Dalai Lama is too shrewd because he could see the Chinese would merrily kill every last Tibetan if they had to and dare the world to do something about it. So if violence wouldn't do anything productive, you might as well try to PR them into submission. That probably won't work either, but it has a faintly better chance.

But consider the other regions : the large Christian and Sunni ethnic groups in Lebanon; the fact that Turkey and Iran are going to hold on to their parts of ethnic Kurdistan with an iron fist; the Soviets are NEVER going to give up Chechnya (sp)...and whoever is in charge in Iraq now, until they commit some very extensive attrocities of the order which Sadaam did will be facing a perpetual civil war with the same exclusion of the losers in the very literal "culture wars" there.

No, terrorism is going to be a fact of our age. It comes and goes in waves as the authorities brutally supress it, token compromises are made, then new tensions arise and a new crop of extremists spring up. It's the natural consequence of the means of destruction being so easy for individuals to acquire. That and the way the media shows the world to everyone, but emphasizes that no one has any effect on the status quo. So people are caught between awareness of what's wrong and pure helplessness regarding it.

When you intersect that with frustrated ambitions of self determination....terrorism is the result.

There's a few purely ideological terrorists, but I doubt more than 5% (if that) of all of them are so motivated. Probably far less.

Why not? Is that your own rule? Arbitrary criteria are judged on their validity and soundness as any other argument, and the arguments proposed by the UK and US to define their criteria are logically sound. It sure can be used to prove a correlation, just as we use arbitrary terms and definitions to prove correlations in all religious studies endeavors and social sciences.
Then define these arbitrary criteria so we can test their validity and soundness for ourselves. Oh, that's right, you can't because you admitted earlier that you don't know what they are.

The basis for this thread is the reported instances of 'terror groups' (?definition?) NOT actual terror groups commiting tangible 'terror'. The link between Islam and Terror is the same as Democracy and imposed wars for/on freedom. There are a bunch of people who seek to put the world to rights but like smeone said earlier that the commonalities of terror groups should be the issue not their muslimness or jewishness or westernness. Terrorism is a vast subject area so no thread will be able to do justice to the topic. If the argument is based on assymetrical warfare or not ,there is always a cause- in todays western media we are presented with 'islam' as the reason for it, rather than the real cause which is uneven power structures, this is just a contempory example of the basis for marx and mao etc. it could be argued that Islam is todays anti-capitalism only Islam provides the basis for thriving capitalism (UAE etc who are NO LONGER reliant on oil- similar to american development/modernizing).

Then define these arbitrary criteria so we can test their validity and soundness for ourselves. Oh, that's right, you can't because you admitted earlier that you don't know what they are.

I didn't say I didn't know what they were. In fact, they are on the two links that I listed in the OP. You must not have read those, because they explain how both the UK and the US define terror groups.

is it right to blindly follow the govt reports as truth? how well do the acually know the groups? it's much speculation on there part to be honest, if they were as accurate as some people portrey then they could swifty elininate 'terrorists' rather than leave the 'whole world' scared about 'firebombs' etc. as some people like us to think.

I reject the term Islamist due to the history of its usage, actually. It was developed in the late 19th century as a purjorative just like Mohammadean and only revived recently to refer to extremists. However, by definition, they are still Islamic. And its unfair to extremist Muslims to use a 19th century purjorative to refer to them. The fact is, they are just as much a valid and historical part of Islam as the moderates, and should be called respectfully "Islamic" rather than via the use of a purjorative.
What a generous and caring heart you must have. It must pain you terribly to post threads like this one.

Might I suggest that you show as much concern for the feelings of Muslims who are not terrorists and agree to use a term that will separate the subset you are talking about -- like, say, "radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists"?

Oh, but if you admitted that some Muslims are not terrorists, that might undermine your attempts to invent a correlation between terrorism and Islam.

It would actually be logically correct. They are Americans, by definition. And if an outsider said "why is there such a large percentage of radical rightwing neocons in America" they would be asking a good question.
That is an attempt to justify bigotry, TS.

It's also a little bit dishonest. Because that is not the position you are taking in this thread. You are not honestly asking "why are there so many terrorist organizations among Muslims?" You are stating that Islam is a root cause of terrorism among Muslims and therfore the answer to your own question is "because they're Muslims." It's an "asked-and-answered" situation.

is it right to blindly follow the govt reports as truth? how well do the acually know the groups? it's much speculation on there part to be honest, if they were as accurate as some people portrey then they could swifty elininate 'terrorists' rather than leave the 'whole world' scared about 'firebombs' etc. as some people like us to think.

I'm not blindly following the reports as truth. The UK and US don't pick groups out at random and suddenly say "oh, this is terrorist." There are extensive laws in both countries that define exaclty what terrorism is, and aid in how terrorist groups are classified.

Since most of these terrorist groups have charters they release to the public, their intentions aren't exactly secret or hidden at this point either. You don't need government intelligence to tell us what their intentions are, because they've told us themselves.

I didn't say I didn't know what they were. In fact, they are on the two links that I listed in the OP. You must not have read those, because they explain how both the UK and the US define terror groups.
You said the criteria are arbitrary. Were you lying? If the criteria are arbitrary, why should I accept the results gained from them as objective or reliable?

EDIT: Your post 21:
Communist movements, Basque independence groups, and Irish groups are still pretty well represented in these terror lists. The problem is without any real categorization of what a 'terrorist' is its difficult to determine the statistics regarding terror groups back then. I'd be interested in seeing the paradigm change, but terror is hard to measure without some (generally arbitrary) criteira to define it.

in which you seem to be saying that you can't define a terror group without criteria. Meaning that for some reason the arbitrary criteria of the reports you're using against Islam cannot be applied to anyone else? Why's that? If you have a set of criteria for defining a terror group, why can't you use it? If the criteria are laid out in the reports, shouldn't you know what they are and be able to use them?

What a generous and caring heart you must have. It must pain you terribly to post threads like this one.

Might I suggest that you show as much concern for the feelings of Muslims who are not terrorists and agree to use a term that will separate the subset you are talking about -- like, say, "radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists"?

Oh, but if you admitted that some Muslims are not terrorists, that might undermine your attempts to invent a correlation between terrorism and Islam.

Well, according to the terror groups listed by these two governments, there is a correlation between terror and Islam. That really can't be disputed, if we go by these statistics. We could call them "radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists" if we want. But, that would be a tautology, and logically meaningless (although true).

That is an attempt to justify bigotry, TS.

It's also a little bit dishonest. Because that is not the position you are taking in this thread. You are not honestly asking "why are there so many terrorist organizations among Muslims?" You are stating that Islam is a root cause of terrorism among Muslims and therfore the answer to your own question is "because they're Muslims." It's an "asked-and-answered" situation.

So, I can ask "why are there so many terrorist groups among Muslims" but not "why is there a correlation between terror and Islam?" Although I've never actually stated that Islam is the root cause of terrorism, or that they are terrorists because they are Muslims, it wouldn't be an unfounded assertion. I know of numerous studies that affirm that Islamic culture is a "terrorist culture." It isn't politically correct, but it is something argued in religious studies, and something I came across more than once getting my degree. In fact, there are even courses offered on "terror in Islam" in many universities, including the one I attended.

Its something that we're learning to admit in scholarly analysis, but not something that is ever going to be politically correct or inoffensive.

You said the criteria are arbitrary. Were you lying? If the criteria are arbitrary, why should I accept the results gained from them as objective or reliable?

You're going in circles now. Arbitrary and reliable are not exclusive. Nor do objective and reliable correlate. Arbitrary criteria are used to define quite a bit in sciences and social studies, and their reliability is evaluated on their logical soundness, not their objectivity.

I'm not blindly following the reports as truth. The UK and US don't pick groups out at random and suddenly say "oh, this is terrorist." There are extensive laws in both countries that define exaclty what terrorism is, and aid in how terrorist groups are classified.
Oh really? Those Quaker pacifists who ended up on a Pentagon terror group list must have been really dangerous then.

Since most of these terrorist groups have charters they release to the public, their intentions aren't exactly secret or hidden at this point either. You don't need government intelligence to tell us what their intentions are, because they've told us themselves.

Just to update the information, since someone brought up statistics regarding specific terror instances rather than classified terror groups, this is from Wikiepdia (Islamic Terrorism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism):

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

Tropical Sands #52
Well, according to the terror groups listed by these two governments, there is a correlation between terror and Islam. That really can't be disputed, if we go by these statistics. We could call them "radical Muslim fundamentalist terrorists" if we want. But, that would be a tautology, and logically meaningless (although true).
Unfortunately for your argument, the sources you posted are not statistics after all. That's right, I finally got around to looking at them. Ah, Wikipedia! The world's most reliable source (more on that below).

These lists are just that -- lists. They make no comparisons, offer no statistical analysis, make no mention of methodology beyond legal definitions, and neither demonstrate nor even imply any correlation between Islam and terrorism.

Even the criteria for inclusion in the lists, which you claim as the "arbitrary criteria" for defining terrorism, have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and cannot be used to show the correlation you are claiming.

The US list does not define "terrorist group" at all but includes the following:
Legal Criteria for Designation
(Reflecting Amendments to Section 219 of the INA in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001)
• It must be a foreign organization.
• The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
• The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

The UK list has the following definition:
Definition of terrorism
Terrorism is defined, in the first section of the Act, as follows:
section 1. -
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
Section 1 goes on to give the Act worldwide scope:
• an "action" can be anywhere in the world,
• "the government" is that of any country, not just the UK, and
• "the public" is the public of any country.
[edit]

Training
Under section 54 training can be an offence:
54. - (1) A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of:
(a) firearms,
(b) explosives, or
(c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
However 54 (5) provides that it is a defence for a person charged with this offence to prove that the provision of instruction or training "was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in 'terrorism'" (as defined by section 1 of the Act)

Nope. Nothing that implies these lists reflect a statistical correlation between Islam and terrorism.

There is no evidence even that they are exhaustive lists. Who posted these lists to Wikipedia? Who compiled the lists? They're awfully short lists. How do we know they are exhaustive and not partial?

As for your supposed correlation, it must be a figment of your imagination, because it sure as hell is not shown in these lists.

So, I can ask "why are there so many terrorist groups among Muslims" but not "why is there a correlation between terror and Islam?"
Right, because you have not establshed that any such correlation exists.

Although I've never actually stated that Islam is the root cause of terrorism, or that they are terrorists because they are Muslims, it wouldn't be an unfounded assertion. I know of numerous studies that affirm that Islamic culture is a "terrorist culture." It isn't politically correct, but it is something argued in religious studies, and something I came across more than once getting my degree. In fact, there are even courses offered on "terror in Islam" in many universities, including the one I attended.

Its something that we're learning to admit in scholarly analysis, but not something that is ever going to be politically correct or inoffensive.

And now we see your true colors. You are bigoted against Islam. Bigotry is not a reasonable foundation for any argument. Your bigotry invalidates your argument. Just look at how it caused you to read things into those lists that were never there.

Tropical Sands #53
You're going in circles now. Arbitrary and reliable are not exclusive. Nor do objective and reliable correlate. Arbitrary criteria are used to define quite a bit in sciences and social studies, and their reliability is evaluated on their logical soundness, not their objectivity.
They certainly seem mutually exclusive in the context of this thread. Your criteria are totally arbitrary -- to the point of being fictional -- and they are also entirely unreliable.

Just to update the information, since someone brought up statistics regarding specific terror instances rather than classified terror groups, this is from Wikiepdia (Islamic Terrorism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism):

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."
Also from Wikiepdia (Islamic Terrorism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism):
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can.
Please see discussion page for details.
Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources.

We're done here.

These lists are just that -- lists. They make no comparisons, offer no statistical analysis, make no mention of methodology beyond legal definitions, and neither demonstrate nor even imply any correlation between Islam and terrorism.

Even the criteria for inclusion in the lists, which you claim as the "arbitrary criteria" for defining terrorism, have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and cannot be used to show the correlation you are claiming.

The lists don't have to make comparisons or statistical analysis. You're slipping into a strawman here. The lists are simply lists of terror groups as acknowledged by two countries. The majority of terror groups included on those lists are Islamic. That much is a fact.

The US list does not define "terrorist group" at all but includes the following:

The UK list has the following definition:

And? That is the criteria given for terrorist groups by those two countries. The US list does define it, as it refers you to the legislation. Which really isn't that complicated, if you were interested in referring to it.

Nope. Nothing that implies these lists reflect a statistical correlation between Islam and terrorism.

Except, of course, for the fact that the majority of terror groups on both lists are Islamic terror groups. No, no correlation at all. :rolleyes:

There is no evidence even that they are exhaustive lists. Who posted these lists to Wikipedia? Who compiled the lists? They're awfully short lists. How do we know they are exhaustive and not partial?

Again, if you checked the sources, this wouldn't be a problem. You keep creating strawman arguments to avoid dealing with the facts. To answer your question, the links to both government websites are found on both Wikipedia pages. A cursory reading should have revealed that.

As for your supposed correlation, it must be a figment of your imagination, because it sure as hell is not shown in these lists.

Right, because you have not establshed that any such correlation exists.

The fact that the majority of groups on both lists are Muslim is a correlation, by definition.

And now we see your true colors. You are bigoted against Islam. Bigotry is not a reasonable foundation for any argument. Your bigotry invalidates your argument. Just look at how it caused you to read things into those lists that were never there.

This is a fallacy called poisoning the well. In fact, a statement like "your bigotry invalidates your argument" is a classical example of this fallacy. You really havn't addressed the argument, but you're attempting to subvert it and pseudo-refute it by saying I'm a bigot.

They certainly seem mutually exclusive in the context of this thread. Your criteria are totally arbitrary -- to the point of being fictional -- and they are also entirely unreliable.

You've yet to refute any of the criteria. As I've stated, the criteria given by both logically valid and sound. You keep saying "totally arbitrary" as if it means something. It doesn't. What matters is if they are logical, and they are.

---

Now, the fact that the Wikipeida article has a tag for cleanup doesn't refute the information. Again, the original sources for all the statistics presented are right there at the bottom of the page. You're attempting to poison the well by attacking the wikipedia article's tag for cleanup instead of addressing the fact that the statistics are from the National Counterterrorism Center.

The lists don't have to make comparisons or statistical analysis. You're slipping into a strawman here. <snip a whole bunch of self-serving crap that I am starting to think isn't beneath you after all>
I'm setting up a strawman? No, TS, you are tilting at windmills.

The data you presented do not say what you claim they say. End of discussion.

Fiind some data that actually do show the correlation you claim exists, or go play make-believe with your lists in the privacy of your own home. But quit wasting our time with this bull.

The fact that the majority of groups on both lists are Muslim is a correlation, by definition.

Yes, there's a correlation in the sense that many of the terrorist groups on these particular lists are made up of radical Islamic fundamentalists. However, you've missed the really amazing correlation - the English name of every single one of the groups on the U.S. list contains the letter "A." Isn't that shocking? So, I ask you, what is it about the letter "A" that causes people who use it to become terrorists?

If you think my last question was a little silly, then you recognize the idea that correlation does not prove causation. The fact that every terrorist organization on the list used the letter "A" does not indicate to a sensible person that the letter "A" inspires terrorism; likewise, the fact that many of these terrorist organizations have ties to Islam does not indicate that Islam causes, inspires, or in fact has anything in particular to do with terrorism.

Except, of course, for the fact that the majority of terror groups on both lists are Islamic terror groups. No, no correlation at all. :rolleyes:Even assuming that these lists are unbiased and complete--a rather difficult assumption given the sources--the measure used is very weak.

We need more information.

First, we need to know the size of each group. Your correlation would be very misleading if, say, a handful of large non-Muslim groups have as many members as dozens of small Muslim groups. (Is that the case? We don't know.)

Second, we need to know something about the terrorist activities of each group. Again, a small number of non-Muslim groups may be just as active as a large number of Muslim groups. (Is this the case? We don't know.)

Finally, we might want to know the duration of each group. Non-Muslim groups may last longer and/or organize more effectively than relatively fleeting Muslim groups that continually "trade" members from one to the other.

Many other possible variables might be introduced. The point is simply that a single measure such as "number of groups" is not very convincing on its own.

To answer your question, the links to both government websites are found on both Wikipedia pages.Yes, but the government sources are the problem. Neither even comes from an independent government agency, but rather from counterterroism agencies within the administration. This is like quoting pollution figures from Bush's EPA. They may be true, yes, but the source itself is not going to inspire any confidence.

The fact that the majority of groups on both lists are Muslim is a correlation, by definition.Yes, it is. It's just not a very convincing one.

The lists don't have to make comparisons or statistical analysis. You're slipping into a strawman here. The lists are simply lists of terror groups as acknowledged by two countries. The majority of terror groups included on those lists are Islamic. That much is a fact.
You sooooooo fail at statistics and statistical analysis. It's a list, but this list says nothing. I could give you my laundry list and it would tell you nothing about the history of laundry. To make the broad jump you're attempting, you need a historical trend, AND you need a list that is comprehensive. The US list fails this on its own merits as it only looks at groups that act against US interests.

Except, of course, for the fact that the majority of terror groups on both lists are Islamic terror groups. No, no correlation at all. :rolleyes:
Take a stats class please before you attempt to try for a correlation. Guess what, all terorrists have HANDS! Yes, this fact has been overlooked by everyone. So, obviously there is a correlation between people with hands and being terrorists!

Or, a majority of terroists groups come from the Middle East, so obviously anyone from the Middle East is a terrorist. YOU must be a terrorist as you are either from or sympathize with people from the Middle East.

See how silly this is? To make a correlation you need a whole hell of a lot more data than the list provides. Instead you just show off your own bias and wishes.

The fact that the majority of groups on both lists are Muslim is a correlation, by definition.
No, it's not. Take a stats class.

Muslims fighting Muslims who oppress them and just happen to be supported by westerners. quick to make all muslims look like terrorists with this thread to fit your zionist agenda arent we?

Zionist agenda? Someone has been reading Aljazeera....sheesh, why dont you read up on history and note why the problems are the way they are between Isreal and the Palestinians...

Fiind some data that actually do show the correlation you claim exists, or go play make-believe with your lists in the privacy of your own home. But quit wasting our time with this bull.

Actually, I did present more data, and put it in the OP. You can get the links to the original sources there, and the link to the source for the Wikipedia stat where it is linked to as well:

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

The same wikipedia article also notes (Muslim Attitudes Toward Terrorism), "In parliamentary election of January 2006, 57% of Palestinians voted for Hamas[10], which is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, United States, Canada, and the European Union and responsible for a number of attacks against Israeli civilians." (Original BBC source here) In addition, "A 2004 Pew survey revealed that Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable." (Original sources here and here)"

Lets see, the data given by the National Counterterrorism Center says that the majority of terror attacks were a result of Islamic extremism. The BBC noted that 57% of Palestinians, who are vastly Muslim, voted a terror group into power, the PEW survey revealed that Osama is viewed with more support in Islamic countries than George Bush is in the Untied States, etc.

See how silly this is? To make a correlation you need a whole hell of a lot more data than the list provides. Instead you just show off your own bias and wishes.

Actually, there is no limit of data to make a correlation. I challenge you to provide one statistical source that claims there is some minimum data set needed for a correlation. You wont be able to find one. You would be able to, if it were true, but it isn't.

And yes, correlations can be absurd (but true) - all terrorists do have hands, yes, there is a correlation between terrorists and hands. That much is a fact. It doesn't mean that terror is caused by hands, however. Its also a fact that there is a correlation between terror and Islam.

Some correlations are meaningless (terror and hands), but some correlations do occur because of causation. The fact that people practice terror because of Islam, as each one of these listed terror groups admitteldy does (read their charters, they are doing it "in the name of Allah"), proves that the terrorists admit the causation is, in part, Islam.

those are scary numbers. They show just how insane many people of that region are. When Bin Laden is more popular than Jesus I have to wonder.

Actually, there is no limit of data to make a correlation. I challenge you to provide one statistical source that claims there is some minimum data set needed for a correlation. You wont be able to find one. You would be able to, if it were true, but it isn't.
Let me rephrase that, to do what you are attempting to needs a lot more data. Again, you ignore everything but a 2006 terror list. You have ignored historical trends. AND (most damningly) you have ignored any other correlation to arive at the one you have picked ahead of time.

This is known as bias. It would get you laughed out of any real stats class.

And yes, correlations can be absurd (but true) - all terrorists do have hands, yes, there is a correlation between terrorists and hands. That much is a fact. It doesn't mean that terror is caused by hands, however. Its also a fact that there is a correlation between terror and Islam.
And there is one between ham and terror, doesn't prove a cause and effect or even anything interesting.

Some correlations are meaningless (terror and hands), but some correlations do occur because of causation. The fact that people practice terror because of Islam, as each one of these listed terror groups admitteldy does (read their charters, they are doing it "in the name of Allah"), proves that the terrorists admit the causation is, in part, Islam.
No, it proves nothing. Again, if you can SHOW me that a large majority of Muslims have gone to terror due to Islam, you may have a point. If you can show me that most terorist groups have, historically, been Islamic, you may have a point, and if you can prove that no other factor is acting, then you will have a point.

But you have not done any of this. Instead you point to a list and say "See? See? Islam is BAD! EVIL! SEE?!!" This is not proof of causality.

Some correlations are meaningless (terror and hands), but some correlations do occur because of causation. The fact that people practice terror because of Islam, as each one of these listed terror groups admitteldy does (read their charters, they are doing it "in the name of Allah"), proves that the terrorists admit the causation is, in part, Islam.

Doing something in the context of one's religion is not the same as doing something because of one's religion. If I was severely schizophrenic and believed I needed to kill puppies because baby Jesus sat on my shoulder and told me to, would this indicate that Christianity causes people to kill puppies? Of course not. The fact that some terrorists are Muslims simply does not indicate that they are terrorists because they are Muslims, and, furthermore, the fact that most Muslims don't blow themselves up offers pretty strong evidence as to the existence of other important factors in the decision to engage in terrorist activity.

That last post was silly NEVRUN. If it is not staggeringly obvious to you that terrorism that is motivated by Islam is a major problem all over the planet than you are living in the land of OZ. Ever hear of Iraq? Or 911? Or the Spain bombings? Or 7/7 in London? Or the Amman bombings? the U.S.S. Cole?The Khobar towers? The Lebonese embassy? Come on. The fantasy land where terrorism and Islam are seperate is not relavant in any discussion. Islamic fundamentalism leads to terrorism. The main cause of terror is Islam fundamentalism. Just ask around. Good grief.

Let me rephrase that, to do what you are attempting to needs a lot more data. Again, you ignore everything but a 2006 terror list. You have ignored historical trends. AND (most damningly) you have ignored any other correlation to arive at the one you have picked ahead of time.

Did you read the stats from the National Counterterrorism Center as well that confirm it? How about the Pew poll? We're not going off just a 2006 terror list any more. Its just one piece of evidence that demonstrates the correlation.

This is known as bias. It would get you laughed out of any real stats class.

What is with the trend of people to talk about being "laughed out" of classes? Its not something that occurs, if you've ever been to school. Its not something that those of us finished with our degrees really talk about, either. :rolleyes:

No, it proves nothing. Again, if you can SHOW me that a large majority of Muslims have gone to terror due to Islam, you may have a point. If you can show me that most terorist groups have, historically, been Islamic, you may have a point, and if you can prove that no other factor is acting, then you will have a point.

You've set up unfalsifiable criteria here, which is illogical by definition. Criteria like "no other factor acting" fits that fallacy. This is because it isn't a necessary criteria for causation. There doesn't have to be a sole factor, and there rarely is. An example would be depression as a disease, which doesn't have a sole factor. By your fallacy of unfalisfable criteria, we don't know that depression is a disease, because there is no isolated single factor.

If you want to outline criteira that confirms to the standards of logic, we can do that. But if you set up illogical criteria, then I can't "prove" anything, including many medical diseases and other established scientific facts.

But you have not done any of this. Instead you point to a list and say "See? See? Islam is BAD! EVIL! SEE?!!" This is not proof of causality.

Causality can never be "proven" in that sense. You should have known that, since you're seem to be implictly a statistics expert.

There are more than 1 billion Muslims. If 0.1% of them were terrorists as a result of their religious indoctrination ( I am not claiming this but lets be hypothetical) that is equal to 1 million terrorists. There obviously are not that many but it goes a long way to show that Islamic terrorism can be a HUGE PROBLEM even if less than .1% of Muslims subscribe to it. This talk about people having to prove that "a majority" of Muslims must approve for the problem to be a problem is laughable.

Doing something in the context of one's religion is not the same as doing something because of one's religion. If I was severely schizophrenic and believed I needed to kill puppies because baby Jesus sat on my shoulder and told me to, would this indicate that Christianity causes people to kill puppies? Of course not. The fact that some terrorists are Muslims simply does not indicate that they are terrorists because they are Muslims, and, furthermore, the fact that most Muslims don't blow themselves up offers pretty strong evidence as to the existence of other important factors in the decision to engage in terrorist activity.

Actually, Christianity would be part of the catalyst and causation. It wouldn't be a monolithic entity that caused it all by itself, however. This is one reason why psychologists often try to keep their schizophrenic patients within the scope of moderate religion, because extremist religion is a trigger (see, cause) for mental illness.

No one is saying that Islam is the sole cause of terrorism, or that all Muslims are terrorists. What is being stated is that a dispreportionate number of terrorists are Muslims. Not only that, but a dispreportionate number of terrorist groups define themselves as Muslim. And that is something that should be evaluated. It obviously isn't a blind correlation, like the fact that terrorists just happen to wear shoes and have eyes, because Islam is something that is chosen, just as terrorism is something that is chosen. And both are chosen together more than other combinations.

If it is not staggeringly obvious to you that terrorism that is motivated by Islam is a major problem all over the planet than you are living in the land of OZ.
I live in the land of Oz...

The fantasy land where terrorism and Islam are seperate is not relavant in any discussion. Islamic fundamentalism leads to terrorism. The main cause of terror is Islam fundamentalism. Just ask around. Good grief.
You're making unfounded assertions. And the OP tried to provide an assertion by simply presenting a list and hoping it would pass as statistics.

In order to make your case you would need a big sample out of both all terrorist attacks and all Islamic Fundamentalists. Then you would start doing various tests (ie maths) to see whether or not any possible correlation between the two can or can not be attributed to chance. If it can not, you are one step closer to being able to assert with some confidence that one causes the other.

The closest I have heard of such a study being undertaken found that religion was not a major factor. Have a look at it here (http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf) (pdf-file), and see whether you can agree with the methodology. The same goes for Tropical Sands.

Look at my last two posts. The incidents that I describe did not occur because those who carried them out had "hands" or eyes". These terrorists are terrorists because of their religious motivations ( Islam). This is so obvious I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that people might not be aware of this.

Arbitrary criteria are used to define quite a bit in sciences and social studies, and their reliability is evaluated on their logical soundness, not their objectivity.

Umm...

You need to take another science class.

Are there arbitrary measures in science? Yes. Does that mean that any measure can be arbitrary? No.

In other words, scientists only use an arbitrary measure when a) we don't have anything better; and b) there is no reason to believe that arbitrariness will affect our results.

For instance, when picking a measure for "time" we can be arbitrary. We have no objective means to decide how long a "second" should be, and we have no reason to believe that just "picking" something will hurt anything. As long as we use some regular unit of time, we'll be able to talk sensibly about time.

In the human sciences, we may pick an arbitrary measure for, say, ideological alignment. At some point, it doesn't really matter whether we have seven or ten ticks between "very liberal" and "very conservative.

Most of the time, however, it really does matter how we try to measure things. "I don't think this research measures what it thinks it measures" is probably the most common criticism offered on work in the social sciences.

If I hypothesize, for instance, that U.S. Presidents with a deep interest in philosophy have very poor performances in office, I need to specify with great care how I measure my terms. First of all, how do I know which Presidents have a "deep interest" in philosophy? I could pick some measure--maybe number of references to philosophers in their personal correspondence--but then someone is likely to ask, what if some philosophical presidents loved to talk philosophy in person, but not in writing?. And I would either have to explain why that is irrelevant--perhaps it is, allowing that writing about philosophy is a "deeper" devotion than just talking about it--or I would have to gather this additional information to support (or refute) my hypothesis.

Secondly, of course, I would need to operationalize "poor performance" in office--and social scientists have yet to decide on a fair measure for this.

You cannot just "decide" on an arbitrary measure and expect people to believe you.

I live in the land of Oz...


You're making unfounded assertions. And the OP tried to provide an assertion by simply presenting a list and hoping it would pass as statistics.

In order to make your case you would need a big sample out of both all terrorist attacks and all Islamic Fundamentalists. Then you would start doing various tests (ie maths) to see whether or not any possible correlation between the two can or can not be attributed to chance. If it can not, you are one step closer to being able to assert with some confidence that one causes the other.

The closest I have heard of such a study being undertaken found that religion was not a major factor. Have a look at it here (http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf) (pdf-file), and see whether you can agree with the methodology. The same goes for Tropical Sands.

No, I don't. Ready....here's my proof. Look up ( from any source), the recent history of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S. Cole, the World Trade Center, London, Madrid, and Israel. You will quickly find that Islamic militant terrorists have slaughted thousands upon thousands in recent years. Robert A. Pape from the University of Chicago vs. the news every night for 6 years.... I'm gonna stick with the news.

I think the correlation between Islam and Terriers is spurious, at best. Most Muslims see dogs as impure. If you are looking for a connection to Terriers, investigate the British.

Actually, I did present more data, and put it in the OP. You can get the links to the original sources there, and the link to the source for the Wikipedia stat where it is linked to as well:
<snip>
Oh, altering your OP, eh? You couldn't possibly have posted those new links here, in the midst of the thread, could you? Naw, see, if the arguments that are already in the thread don't match the OP as edited, maybe it'll be easier to claim they never did. Who else does that? It's someone I don't respect.

I'll look at your links tomorrow. In the meantime, kindly don't clutter up your posts with inflammatory quotes taken out of context, thanks.

You're making unfounded assertions. And the OP tried to provide an assertion by simply presenting a list and hoping it would pass as statistics.

In order to make your case you would need a big sample out of both all terrorist attacks and all Islamic Fundamentalists. Then you would start doing various tests (ie maths) to see whether or not any possible correlation between the two can or can not be attributed to chance. If it can not, you are one step closer to being able to assert with some confidence that one causes the other.

I actually amended the OP with other statistics. The National Counterterrorism Center stats that said 57% of terrorist killings and 61% injuries were a result of Islamic extremism. Thats significant, and actually is close to the number of Islamic terror groups on the list vs those of non-Muslim origin.

You will quickly find that Islamic militant terrorists have slaughted thousands upon thousands in recent years.
And you will also notice that there are many terrorists who are not Islamic militants, as well as that there are many Islamic militants who are not terrorists.
Which is where your correlation/causation breaks down.

So either you're going to try and go the stats way, as was attempted in this thread, or you're going to argue about Islam - in which case you should abandon the talk about correlation and statistics and get into theology.

Oh, altering your OP, eh? You couldn't possibly have posted those new links here, in the midst of the thread, could you? Naw, see, if the arguments that are already in the thread don't match the OP as edited, maybe it'll be easier to claim they never did. Who else does that? It's someone I don't respect.

Actually, I did post them here when I went back and posted them on the OP. This is a lot like you claiming that there was no criteria for what a terrorist group is, when I stated it was on the links in the OP.

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

I would like to emphasize a different part of this datum.

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

Do you happen to know how they determined a "perpetrator type"? And do you happen to know just how many could not be "specified"?

I actually amended the OP with other statistics. The National Counterterrorism Center stats that said 57% of terrorist killings and 61% injuries were a result of Islamic extremism. Thats significant, and actually is close to the number of Islamic terror groups on the list vs those of non-Muslim origin.

So....about 18% of people on Earth of Muslim and 57% of terrorism deaths are caused by people who are Muslims. This seems.....obvious.

Thats significant...
You did a t-Test?

And you will also notice that there are many terrorists who are not Islamic militants, as well as that there are many Islamic militants who are not terrorists.
Which is where your correlation/causation breaks down.

That wouldn't make it break down. It would only demonstrate that there is not a 100% sole cause of Islam on terror. It doesn't demonstrate that Islam is not part of the cause in any way, however.

So either you're going to try and go the stats way, as was attempted in this thread, or you're going to argue about Islam - in which case you should abandon the talk about correlation and statistics and get into theology.

Pure statistical analysis doesn't work well in social studies, including critical analysis of religion. You have to take the social context into factor and see how it relates to the statistics. Although using statistics like a quantitative study, qualitative studies make use of statistics as well.

I would like to emphasize a different part of this datum.

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

Do you happen to know how they determined a "perpetrator type"? And do you happen to know just how many could not be "specified"?


By getting caught up in the techinal parts of the data you are missing the larger point. Terrorism is very disproportionaly carried out by Muslims. This does not seem to be the case to you? The middle East has been in the headlines a lot.

So....about 18% of people on Earth of Muslim and 57% of terrorism deaths are caused by people who are Muslims. This seems.....obvious.
And that's called a logical fallacy, "Correlation implies Causation" to be exact.

Because you'll notice that there is a certain percentage of people on earth who live in the middle east. Or a certain percentage of people of semitic ethnicity. Or a certain percentage of people with beards.

All of these groups probably have a higher incidence of terrorism than humanity as a whole.

As I said, you need to start arguing theology if you want to present any sort of proof for your theory.

I would like to emphasize a different part of this datum.

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."

Do you happen to know how they determined a "perpetrator type"? And do you happen to know just how many could not be "specified"?

In part. There are various ways to determine a perpetrator type, such as the groups claiming responsibility. Terror groups virtually all claim responsibility for terror attacks. That is how they support their agendas. Sometimes, a terror attack will occur and three or four Islamic groups will instantly claim it.

And the unspecified ones were included in those statistics, not grouped outside of them. So they don't weight the percentages of Islamic terrorism given.

That last post was silly NEVRUN. If it is not staggeringly obvious to you that terrorism that is motivated by Islam is a major problem all over the planet than you are living in the land of OZ. Ever hear of Iraq? Or 911? Or the Spain bombings? Or 7/7 in London? Or the Amman bombings? the U.S.S. Cole?The Khobar towers? The Lebonese embassy? Come on. The fantasy land where terrorism and Islam are seperate is not relavant in any discussion. Islamic fundamentalism leads to terrorism. The main cause of terror is Islam fundamentalism. Just ask around. Good grief.
Do you live in OZ too? Ever hear of Oaklahoma City? IRA? Nepal's Maxist groups?

I can give measure for measure too. And groups active a whole hell of a lot longer than the Islamic ones. Again, attempting to link a religion that is thousands of years old to current events as a causality fails.

It doesn't demonstrate that Islam is not part of the cause in any way, however.
No, but then it doesn't demonstrate that these people's hands aren't part of the cause.

Pure statistical analysis doesn't work well in social studies, including critical analysis of religion.
Any form of thinking doesn't work well in critical analysis of religion.

You have to take the social context into factor and see how it relates to the statistics.
Like Pape did in the study I posted. And he found that political circumstances and perceptions of us vs them are much better explanatory variables than religion.
Which makes sense, doesn't it?

I think the correlation between Islam and Terriers is spurious, at best. Most Muslims see dogs as impure. If you are looking for a connection to Terriers, investigate the British.

Please stop arguing and do something to save the puppies.

And that's called a logical fallacy, "Correlation implies Causation" to be exact.

Actually, no one has claimed that correlation implies causation.

We can demonstrate causation of terror in Islam, however. All we have to do is go on the Hamas website and read about all of the shaheeds, who, according to their own words on video tape and the website, "died for Islam." Died, of course, meaning blowing themselves up with others.

The fact that we have many instances of proven causation outside of these statistics effects the way we evaluate the statistics. The correlation alone doesn't imply causation, that would be a fallacy. The fact that there was proven causation in some groups implies causation in similiar groups, however.

In the same respect, if we had terror groups whose charters called for people to "die for my beard" and then statistics that said 57% of terrorists had beards, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that those 57%, as a similiar group, shared the same characteristics of the previous bearded groups.

Did you read the stats from the National Counterterrorism Center as well that confirm it? How about the Pew poll? We're not going off just a 2006 terror list any more. Its just one piece of evidence that demonstrates the correlation.
Oh goodie, you went back to 2001. Yes, THERE'S a historical trend for a religion that's been around well over 1,000 years and has millions of followers.

Please. :rolleyes:

What is with the trend of people to talk about being "laughed out" of classes? Its not something that occurs, if you've ever been to school. Its not something that those of us finished with our degrees really talk about, either. :rolleyes:
Nice try. I can just imagine if you brought this up to my (former) stats professor. The point being that you are attempting statistical trickery.

You've set up unfalsifiable criteria here, which is illogical by definition. Criteria like "no other factor acting" fits that fallacy. This is because it isn't a necessary criteria for causation. There doesn't have to be a sole factor, and there rarely is. An example would be depression as a disease, which doesn't have a sole factor. By your fallacy of unfalisfable criteria, we don't know that depression is a disease, because there is no isolated single factor.
No, YOU have attempted to do so. You are trying to say that Islam as a religion causes, somehow, terrorists to act. I am calling bullshit on this attempted link by noting that your data is limited and lacks anything approching a good link.

Causality can never be "proven" in that sense. You should have known that, since you're seem to be implictly a statistics expert.
But you CAN find strong hints (as it were) in the data. You haven't shown that. You have shown ONE link, but nothing beyond that.

And that's called a logical fallacy, "Correlation implies Causation" to be exact.

Because you'll notice that there is a certain percentage of people on earth who live in the middle east. Or a certain percentage of people of semitic ethnicity. Or a certain percentage of people with beards.

All of these groups probably have a higher incidence of terrorism than humanity as a whole.

As I said, you need to start arguing theology if you want to present any sort of proof for your theory.

Come on you are being silly. Ready? Here goes. IN 2004 the U.S. government kept track over every terrorist event on the planet and monitered casualties closely. 3,192 terrorist incidents took place. 6,060 people were killed.

Known casualties caused by terrorists motivated by beards: 0
Known casualties caused by terrorists who were self-described Islamic extremists : 2,242

You are trying to use to weasel like debate tactic where you set your opponent up with a fact that they cannot prove to your unreasonably high standard without actualy being there when the event occured. Nobody can be 100% on a person's motivation. But you sure as hell can start making assumptions when a group of people called "the intafada brigade" or " al-queda" start beheading civilians. One of the assumptions might be ...hey...they might be motivated by fundamentalist Islam.....

No, but then it doesn't demonstrate that these people's hands aren't part of the cause.

Well the hands are definatley a part of the cause. Handless terrorists can't make bombs and shoot guns. :D

Like Pape did in the study I posted. And he found that political circumstances and perceptions of us vs them are much better explanatory variables than religion.
Which makes sense, doesn't it?

I agree with that. Like I said, I'm not one to argue that there is a single cause of terror in Islamic populations. Its simplistic to pretend that Islam causes terror, or that any one factor causes terror. There are many variables, political, social, and economic circumstances are a large part of it. As are perceptions of worldview. Religion also seems to be a large part of it, and some religions more than others.

Robert A. Pape from the University of Chicago vs. the news every night for 6 years.... I'm gonna stick with the news.
Oh yes, because we all know the news reports everything and does peer reviewable research. :rolleyes:

Oppressive western foreign policy. Whether it being supporting Israel in its horrible actions against Palestine, the support of puppet governments across the middle east that oppress their people, or the occupation of Iraq. Im guessing those things among others leads to muslim terror

1. Support of Israel goes to who is being reasonable in the issue of Israel. Israel is doing its best to defend itself and avoid collataral damage by only trying to kill terrorists (terrorists defined as those who want to intentionally kill Israelie civilians)

2. I agree with you that the support for Saudi Arabia in particular is hypocritical of America

You all seem to love statistics. Who, statisticly, is more likely to crash an airplane into a landmark building, cut a journalist's head off, or blow up a market place.....

A) an elderly Christian female
B) a Jewish business executive
c) a Fundamentalist Muslim male age 22


Yes, all three people have eyes!
All of them have hair!
They all breath air and have pulses!

Yet, there are certain traits that allow us to come to certain conclusions. Grandma never blew up the Cole. Little Tommy never shot down an army chopper. Pat Robertson never cut a woman's head off. The SELF DESCRIBED ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS HAVE. Thousands of attacks per year. And you see no trend? If you honestly don't than I will quote Roosevelt
" there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Oh goodie, you went back to 2001. Yes, THERE'S a historical trend for a religion that's been around well over 1,000 years and has millions of followers.

You keep saying "historical trend", but this isn't a criteria used in evaluating statistics except for over that select period of time. I don't have a give you a historical trend to demonstrate the fact that today, in modern times, there is a correlation between Islam and terror.

Is there a specific date that you want me to start gathering data at that you can justify more than 2001?

No, YOU have attempted to do so. You are trying to say that Islam as a religion causes, somehow, terrorists to act. I am calling bullshit on this attempted link by noting that your data is limited and lacks anything approching a good link.

Well, I outlined your fallacy clearly. It was defining unfalsifiable criteria, i.e. 100% "proof" that Islam is the sole cause. No one has claimed that, and it isn't something that is provable or logical. I've never set up any fallacious criteria of the such, so turning around and saying "no, you did!" is like saying "i'm rubber, you're glue, etc."

Now, all data is limited. Yet, I've presented stats from the National Counterterrosim center, two Pew polls, and the official lists of terror groups in the UK and US.

Religion also seems to be a large part of it, and some religions more than others.
Yes. Just yesterday I was talking to a mate of mine about Kach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahane_Chai). Religion definitely played a large part in their self-motivation and their propaganda, but it hardly was the reason they suddenly stood up and thought "How about we kill people we don't like?"

The fact that we have many instances of proven causation outside of these statistics effects the way we evaluate the statistics.
But are these really proven?

I'm not even saying that these guys are lying and just using religion as a front (although I think Zarqawi was definitely the character to do that), I'm saying that religion is not the reason they started with the terrorism in the first place. It's a powerful motivator, but it's not the cause.

If it was, and Islam was part of the cause then there should be some probabilty that in any Muslim community a certain number of people will become terrorists. This clearly isn't the case (although things are again distorted a little by an increasing sense of alienation among Muslims in the Western World which causes AQ-type ideologies to get picked up from time to time).
On the other hand, the other factors mentioned seem to be much better at predicting where and when terrorism will occur. The causal relationship appears much stronger...and we should be starting threads about political oppression all the time rather than about Islam.

By getting caught up in the techinal parts of the data you are missing the larger point. Terrorism is very disproportionaly carried out by Muslims. This does not seem to be the case to you? The middle East has been in the headlines a lot.

I see. No one likes your government sources, so for proof you ask us to look to... the media?

You can't be serious. The same media that has had people convinced that crime is on the rise--for the last twenty years--even as it has declined consistently in that period?

Please! :headbang:

We could sit here all day trying to prove to you that the terrorists are killing thousands of people every year in the name of Islam while you argue that they did it because blood is a pretty color, or the NY skyline looks sharper without the World trade centers....or some other bogus reason like class warfare, Bush is bad etc. But that would be a waste of time. I will not travel back in time and ask every Islamic bomber why they did it. If it is not staggeringly obvious that terrorism that is driven by Islam is a problem than I really have not idea what to say. Can you really make that claim?

Just to clarify, the lists of terror groups havn't listed terrorist groups that just happen to be Muslim, but self-defined Islamic groups. In the same respect, the terror stats listed by the NCTC didn't list terror statistics that happened to be done by Muslims, but what it defined as terror done because of "Islamic extremism."

Now, its one thing to say that the high number of Islamic terror groups doesn't demonstrate anything. That much is true, its questionable. The UK and US could be a bunch of anti-Islamic bigots in this conspiratorial worldview that focus only on Islamic groups. Or they could be accurately representative of Islamic terror.

Its another thing to reject the NCTC stats, which clearly state that over half of terror is done because of Islamic extremism.

In part. There are various ways to determine a perpetrator type, such as the groups claiming responsibility. Terror groups virtually all claim responsibility for terror attacks. That is how they support their agendas. Sometimes, a terror attack will occur and three or four Islamic groups will instantly claim it.Yes, and those may be useful ways of identifying the perpetrator. But my question concerns what was actually used by the U.S. government. What was it?

And the unspecified ones were included in those statistics, not grouped outside of them. So they don't weight the percentages of Islamic terrorism given.Is something in this gibberish an answer to the question "how many 'unspecified' datapoints are there?"

I see. No one likes your government sources, so for proof you ask us to look to... the media?

You can't be serious. The same media that has had people convinced that crime is on the rise--for the last twenty years--even as it has declined consistently in that period?

Please! :headbang:

So you believe that the media mistranslated the men who were reading from the Koran before they cut off Nick Berg's head? The 911 operators misheard the men chanting "Allah is great" before those flights hit the World trade center? Was Zarqawi manipulated. Oh yes, they did it because they had beards.....I almost forgot.

Actually, Christianity would be part of the catalyst and causation. It wouldn't be a monolithic entity that caused it all by itself, however. This is one reason why psychologists often try to keep their schizophrenic patients within the scope of moderate religion, because extremist religion is a trigger (see, cause) for mental illness.

Ah. You seem to be using a rather odd definition of "causation" here, which may be part of the problem with this thread. I (and, I suspect, most people) would consider the "cause" of a delusional person's delusion-inspired actions to be the fact that they are delusional, not what they happened to have delusions about. (There's also a fairly significant difference in my book between a trigger and a cause. For example, I myself am recovering from PTSD. Sometimes, I will see something that forcefully reminds me of the particular traumatic experience I went through, and I have a panic attack. While whatever I saw obviously triggered my panic attack, the cause of that attack was the PTSD. That, however, is drifting off the topic at hand.)


No one is saying that Islam is the sole cause of terrorism, or that all Muslims are terrorists.

Good, because that would be absurd.

What is being stated is that a dispreportionate number of terrorists are Muslims.

You have not offered strong evidence to support this premise. You have offered evidence that a disproportionate number of terrorist organizations of undisclosed size which the US and the UK find particularly worrisome have Islamist ties. Those two statements are not equivalent.

And that is something that should be evaluated.

This, at least, I can agree with, assuming the evaluation is along the lines of "Why do terrorists become terrorists?" rather than "Terrorists become terrorists because they are Muslims, and Islam is bad. Now let's find evidence to support that."

It obviously isn't a blind correlation, like the fact that terrorists just happen to wear shoes and have eyes, because Islam is something that is chosen, just as terrorism is something that is chosen. And both are chosen together more than other combinations.

Unfortunately, that doesn't become obvious just because you say it is. Most terrorists probably also choose to wear pants, and choose not to dye their hair purple, and choose to take medicine when they get sick. Lots of things are chosen. This does not make any of them more valid or useful correlations. You have offered absolutely no evidence that (to make up a pseudo-possibility) the predominant root cause of terrorism isn't living in the Middle East, since a disproportionate number of terrorists probably do that, too. You cannot just pick a pet commonality and decalre it to be a more important factor than others without supplying some evidence of its relative importance, and you simply have not done that.

And you see no trend? If you honestly don't than I will quote Roosevelt
" there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
You know the reason I'm posting here, right?

I'm already done with the whole Islam thing, we did that earlier. I'm doing the stats thing right now.

Now, I'm doing a lot of econometrics at university at the moment, I learned a lot about it and I'm fascinated by the possibilities.

And then there are people like Roosevelt who will come out and tell me that stats are lies, that they can be used to prove anything and so on. It's bullshit, and it stems from people not having a clue what statistics is about.

As for your above example, let's change the three characters to something a little more inclusive of other factors that might play a role:
a) A young Catholic man from a militant unionist family in Northern Ireland when it was still being directly oppressed by the Brits.
b) A pregnant Tamil girl in Sri Lanka who doesn't get representation in the Sri Lankan parliament, but instead is greeted by bombs and landmines every so often.
c) A Muslim guy from Syria who isn't allowed to use his computer, hears in the news all the time how much his brothers in Palestine are oppressed and thinks the West is on a crusade to oppress his people and faith.
Now you tell me who's most likely to become involved with terrorism.

ARE THESE FACTS ACCURATE?

1) There is such a thing as terrorism
2) There is such a thing as Islamic extremism
3) many people who believe in Islamic extremism practice terrorism

.

As for your above example, let's change the three characters to something a little more inclusive of other factors that might play a role:
a) A young Catholic man from a militant unionist family in Northern Ireland when it was still being directly oppressed by the Brits.
b) A pregnant Tamil girl in Sri Lanka who doesn't get representation in the Sri Lankan parliament, but instead is greeted by bombs and landmines every so often.
c) A Muslim guy from Syria who isn't allowed to use his computer, hears in the news all the time how much his brothers in Palestine are oppressed and thinks the West is on a crusade to oppress his people and faith.
Now you tell me who's most likely to become involved with terrorism.

Well I had thought that the reason you were posting here had somthing to do with the thread topic but now that you have switched over to statistics and the studying of them....good grief. Well, you tell me, which area has the most terrorism deaths??? Ireland, Sri Lanka, or Iraq?

ARE THESE FACTS ACCURATE?
"Many" is of course a relative term, but yes, they are.

Yes. Just yesterday I was talking to a mate of mine about Kach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahane_Chai). Religion definitely played a large part in their self-motivation and their propaganda, but it hardly was the reason they suddenly stood up and thought "How about we kill people we don't like?"

Well, each situation is different. There have to be varying degrees to how strong religion is an influence. In some cases it may have most of the influence, while in others it has little to no influence.

But are these really proven?

I'm not even saying that these guys are lying and just using religion as a front (although I think Zarqawi was definitely the character to do that), I'm saying that religion is not the reason they started with the terrorism in the first place. It's a powerful motivator, but it's not the cause.

If it was, and Islam was part of the cause then there should be some probabilty that in any Muslim community a certain number of people will become terrorists. This clearly isn't the case (although things are again distorted a little by an increasing sense of alienation among Muslims in the Western World which causes AQ-type ideologies to get picked up from time to time).
On the other hand, the other factors mentioned seem to be much better at predicting where and when terrorism will occur. The causal relationship appears much stronger...and we should be starting threads about political oppression all the time rather than about Islam.

We probably have a symbiosis of Islam and other social factors working to cause terror. While the number of terrorists in certain Islamic communities is exceedingly low, it isn't unheard of. Islamic converts pop up in Western countries as terrorists on occassion too, and its difficult for me to see that as the result of political or social oppression.

In countries where poverty is high, politcs are bad, etc. this may push people toward a more extremist interpretation of Islam, which is used as the main scapegoat for terror attacks. We rarely see terrorists die with "social injustice" on their lips, its always "Allahu Akbar." Thus, it would appear that Islam is a necessary factor in the formation of these Islamic terrorists. Whatever secular causes influence them to become terrorists, Islam compounds it. This is why we have a higher rate of Islamic terrorists, and why Islam is used as the scapegoat for terrorism in Muslim nations, and why there is no similiar scapegoat in other terror organizations.

Well I had thought that the reason you were posting here had somthing to do with the thread topic but now that you have switched over to statistics and the studying of them....good grief.
If you look at the OP - the use of random statistics to prove spurious relationships very much is the topic.

Well, you tell me, which area has the most terrorism deaths??? Ireland, Sri Lanka, or Iraq?
Oh, so the success of bombings is now a criterion. Is that also caused by religion?
For the record, I'm pretty sure that the Tamil Tigers still hold the record for the most suicide bombings.

Terrorism that is motivated by Islamic extremist is a major problem.

That is to hard to swallow? The idea that maybe...just maybe...Islam might be the motivating factor for many terrorist attacks. According to the attackers its a motivation. You don't believe them?

Except here, we have causation to a degree. These are "Islamic terrorist groups" by definition. If you read the charters that they hold, this is what they affirm. They aren't terror groups who just happen to have large Islamic percentages of members or the like.

We don't call the IRA a Catholic terror group although its predominately Catholic, for example. We define them along their goals and criteria, and these Muslim terror groups are distinctly Islamic by admission.

In the XX century, we've seen how oppressed groups or nations had change their ideologies to fight against oppresion. For exemple, most of the former communist stablishment became into nationalist govs, like in yugoslavia. Equally, in the middle East, left arab nationalist didn't success in his struggle with the west, and looked for sovietic aid. Al fatah claimed as a nasserist group to fight against Israel. But for many reasons (west interventiont amongst others) they failed and those populations, looked another ideology to fight against the same problems. So, Islamic terrorism is another try to solve the same old problems.

In countries where poverty is high, politcs are bad, etc. this may push people toward a more extremist interpretation of Islam, which is used as the main scapegoat for terror attacks. We rarely see terrorists die with "social injustice" on their lips, its always "Allahu Akbar."
As I said, religion is one of the best motivators - especially when you are risking your life.

This is why we have a higher rate of Islamic terrorists, and why Islam is used as the scapegoat for terrorism in Muslim nations, and why there is no similiar scapegoat in other terror organizations.
Now, I can't say I'm an expert on most terrorist groups, but I know a little about the RAF. This group did not actually use suicide bombings, but its members were very much ready to die on their missions.
They weren't religious at all, they used other things to motivate themselves. The same is true of the IRA or the LTTE.

a) A young Catholic man from a militant unionist family in Northern Ireland when it was still being directly oppressed by the Brits.
b) A pregnant Tamil girl in Sri Lanka who doesn't get representation in the Sri Lankan parliament, but instead is greeted by bombs and landmines every so often.
c) A Muslim guy from Syria who isn't allowed to use his computer, hears in the news all the time how much his brothers in Palestine are oppressed and thinks the West is on a crusade to oppress his people and faith.

Now, this is interesting. I think it highlights my point. In Ireland, the IRA and such were incidentally Catholic. Yet, the reason they are driven to terrorism is due to the British oppression. Religion factors in slightly in the Irish conflict as well, but as a sideline issue due to the Irish being Catholic and the British being Protestant.

In Sri Lanka, the LTTE is fighting for independence. Rarely is religion used as the scapegoat, they are almost totally political and secular in their statements of motives.

C is interesting, because you wrote "the West is on a crusade to oppress his people and his faith." Without realizing it, you may have related the degree to which Islam influences the Islamic terrorists as oppossed to terror in other instances. The idea that the West is on a crusade against Islam, and that the West wants to oppress the faith, are all distinctly Islamic religious beliefs. If the Syrian Muslim believes that, it is due to what modern Islamic clerics and the like have taught him about the issue.

We can demonstrate causation of terror in Islam, however. All we have to do is go on the Hamas website and read about all of the shaheeds, who, according to their own words on video tape and the website, "died for Islam." Died, of course, meaning blowing themselves up with others.Well, what a biased sample.

What you really want to do is take a random sample of all terrorists, Muslim and non-Muslim, and see how many of them claim they are "doing God's work." Even if you have a real correlation between Islam and terrorism, this would be how to test it. If it turns out that *gasp* all terrorists think God loves them, then you haven't shown a causal relation between being Muslim and turning to terrorism. And no, if we find a correlation between religion and terrorism, this does not prove that "religion causes terrorism." At best, it means that religion is a conditional variable--that is, while being religious does not "cause" terrorism, people who would turn to the most extreme and self-destructive acts of terrorism are more likely to go through with them if they believe they are going to Heaven. And even this would have to be tested.

In the same respect, if we had terror groups whose charters called for people to "die for my beard" and then statistics that said 57% of terrorists had beards, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that those 57%, as a similiar group, shared the same characteristics of the previous bearded groups.No, you're still not thinking about alternative explanations.

So 57% of terrorists have beards. What if 57% (or more) of everyone has a beard?

So some terrorist charters call for people to "die for the beard." If the others say "die for the shaven face," all you know is that terrorists seem to pledge themselves to their accustomed facial grooming. You certainly don't have evidence of causation.

Terrorism that is motivated by Islamic extremist is a major problem.
Not only are you repeating yourself, but I never disagreed with that particular statement.

I disagreed with a slightly different line you were pushing, namely that is is Islam that causes terrorism. That is not easily proven, and none of this stats stuff helps to do it.

As I said, religion is one of the best motivators - especially when you are risking your life.


Now, I can't say I'm an expert on most terrorist groups, but I know a little about the RAF. This group did not actually use suicide bombings, but its members were very much ready to die on their missions.
They weren't religious at all, they used other things to motivate themselves. .

The Royal Air Force? From England? What? hah.

So 57% of terrorists have beards. What if 57% (or more) of everyone has a beard?

So some terrorist charters call for people to "die for the beard." If the others say "die for the shaven face," all you know is that terrorists seem to pledge themselves to their accustomed facial grooming. You certainly don't have evidence of causation.

Remember my previous post about the land of OZ?

This is simply odd.

Not only are you repeating yourself, but I never disagreed with that particular statement.

I disagreed with a slightly different line you were pushing, namely that is is Islam that causes terrorism. That is not easily proven, and none of this stats stuff helps to do it.

I never said that Islam causes terrorism. I said that many terrorists are motived by their perception (a warped one) of Islam. I said this....a few times. I never pushed the line you just posted.

How can you deny that terrorism that is motivated by Islam is a huge problem? I'm sure the thousands who are dead think so. When my father helped I.D. the smashed up bodies at the World trade center site it dawned on him that it was a problem. The land of oz came to an end for many people that day...

You have not offered strong evidence to support this premise. You have offered evidence that a disproportionate number of terrorist organizations of undisclosed size which the US and the UK find particularly worrisome have Islamist ties. Those two statements are not equivalent.

Why is everyone ignoring the statistics from the ICTC and the Pew surveys I listed? The ICTC gives statistics for which the majority of terror attacks between 2004 and 2005 are the direct result of Islamic extremism.

Unfortunately, that doesn't become obvious just because you say it is. Most terrorists probably also choose to wear pants, and choose not to dye their hair purple, and choose to take medicine when they get sick. Lots of things are chosen. This does not make any of them more valid or useful correlations. You have offered absolutely no evidence that (to make up a pseudo-possibility) the predominant root cause of terrorism isn't living in the Middle East, since a disproportionate number of terrorists probably do that, too. You cannot just pick a pet commonality and decalre it to be a more important factor than others without supplying some evidence of its relative importance, and you simply have not done that.

Wearing pants, dying your hair, etc. are all incidental. Yet, terror groups in their charters affirm that what they are doing they are doing in the name of Islam. The fact that some terror groups admit that their terror attacks are in the name of Islam proves causation for those terror groups alone. The fact that a large sample of terror groups admit this causation also makes it reasonable to assume that similiar terror groups have the same motives, as well.

We have no terrorist group charters that refer to living in the Middle East as their course of action, wearing pants, having hands, etc. We do have numerous terrorist charters that affirm their course of aciton is because of Islam. Thus, similar terror groups must be evaluated within that context.

Without realizing it, you may have related the degree to which Islam influences the Islamic terrorists as oppossed to terror in other instances.
Not necessarily. Because religions tend to make people group together and identify with each other. When I mean "attack on the faith", I could as well have said "attack on Muslims" or "attack on his brothers". They're the same thing - it's the feeling that the community is under attack that is important.

The idea that the West is on a crusade against Islam, and that the West wants to oppress the faith, are all distinctly Islamic religious beliefs.
I don't think that particular line is found in the Holy Literature though.

If the Syrian Muslim believes that, it is due to what modern Islamic clerics and the like have taught him about the issue.
Exactically. Which divides the religion itself from the lessons distributed by various nutcases, and reduces the factor of which religion it is in particular to irrelevance.
The nutcase preacher might as well be a Christian Pastor, a Rabbi or a Communist Guerilla Leader.

If you honestly don't than I will quote Roosevelt
" there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Not that it's directly relevant to the topic at hand, but it tends to undermine the credibility of one's argument when one so woefully misattributes a quotation (as well as misphrasing it to boot). That line antedates Roosevelt's presidency by nearly a century; Disraeli said it and Twain popularized it right around the time when little F.D.R. was being born.

Sorry to nitpick, but misattribution annoys me, especially when it's so egregious.

Not necessarily. Because religions tend to make people group together and identify with each other. When I mean "attack on the faith", I could as well have said "attack on Muslims" or "attack on his brothers". They're the same thing - it's the feeling that the community is under attack that is important.





When I go for a walk with my brothers I don't say......." hey that was a great walk with my faith".

so.....a terrorist talks about his faith. he is a Muslim. aw, no , there can't be any correlation.

Well, what a biased sample.

What you really want to do is take a random sample of all terrorists, Muslim and non-Muslim, and see how many of them claim they are "doing God's work." Even if you have a real correlation between Islam and terrorism, this would be how to test it. If it turns out that *gasp* all terrorists think God loves them, then you haven't shown a causal relation between being Muslim and turning to terrorism. And no, if we find a correlation between religion and terrorism, this does not prove that "religion causes terrorism." At best, it means that religion is a conditional variable--that is, while being religious does not "cause" terrorism, people who would turn to the most extreme and self-destructive acts of terrorism are more likely to go through with them if they believe they are going to Heaven. And even this would have to be tested.

If we're talking about Islamic terror, we only need to take a sample of Islamic terror groups. We don't need to take samples of non-Islamic groups to demonstrate anything about Islamic groups.

No, you're still not thinking about alternative explanations.

So 57% of terrorists have beards. What if 57% (or more) of everyone has a beard?

No, the statistics don't say that 57% of the terrorists happened to be Muslim. It said that 57% of the terrorist actions were because of Islamic extremism.

You're confusing something incidental with something that the statistics in the ICTC have already established as a cause. Those 57% are the 57% that died because of Islamic extremism, not a 57% who died by people who just happened to be Muslim.

So some terrorist charters call for people to "die for the beard." If the others say "die for the shaven face," all you know is that terrorists seem to pledge themselves to their accustomed facial grooming. You certainly don't have evidence of causation.

No, no terrorist charters call people to die for the beard. And the ICTC demonstrated that 57% of those people died because of Islamic extremism. That was the findings of the actual study, not me claiming something new based on those statistics.

You keep saying "historical trend", but this isn't a criteria used in evaluating statistics except for over that select period of time. I don't have a give you a historical trend to demonstrate the fact that today, in modern times, there is a correlation between Islam and terror.Right, you keep harping on about the correlation.

The problem is still causation.

You need a broader historical trend because the last four years are only a very, very limited sample of the years for which Christianity and Islam have been around.

It's the scientific method:

Theory: Islam is a major cause of terrorism.
Testable hypothesis: If Islam is a major cause of terrorism, then Muslims should consistently compose a majority of those who practice terrorism.

But when you go to test this hypothesis, your unit of analysis is the year--you are taking yearly numbers--so if you only give us the last four years, that means you only have four datapoints in your set! Is this tiny non-random sample supposed to be convincing?

Is there a specific date that you want me to start gathering data at that you can justify more than 2001?Yeah. How about the seventh century or so when Islam was born? A random sample of years--or, more likely given the uncertain nature of the older data, a sample of centuries--would be rather convincing. A lot of the data wouldn't be as "nice" as what we can collect now, but as a scientist you have to work with what you have.

So you believe that the media mistranslated the men who were reading from the Koran before they cut off Nick Berg's head? The 911 operators misheard the men chanting "Allah is great" before those flights hit the World trade center?No, I'm sure all that is very accurate.

It's just not a random sample.

using AnarchyeL's logic with statistics this argument could be made...

IN a recent poll 38% of American's approved of Bush

this could mean that 38% of Americans like Orange Juice.

I am still not sure where it is in Oz you are leading us with this "beards" thing. Bizzare.

The Royal Air Force? From England? What? hah.
That particular post didn't exactly help your standing in this argument, mate. But I'll ignore it and make you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Armee_Fraktion).

I never said that Islam causes terrorism. I said that many terrorists are motived by their perception (a warped one) of Islam. I said this....a few times. I never pushed the line you just posted.
The fantasy land where terrorism and Islam are seperate is not relavant in any discussion. Islamic fundamentalism leads to terrorism. The main cause of terror is Islam fundamentalism. Just ask around. Good grief.
These terrorists are terrorists because of their religious motivations ( Islam).
If it is not staggeringly obvious that terrorism that is driven by Islam is a problem than I really have not idea what to say.

How can you deny that terrorism that is motivated by Islam is a huge problem? I'm sure the thousands who are dead think so. When my father helped I.D. the smashed up bodies at the World trade center site it dawned on him that it was a problem. The land of oz came to an end for many people that day...
Hehe, an appeal to emotion. I don't work that way, sorry.

Theory: Islam is a major cause of terrorism.
Testable hypothesis: If Islam is a major cause of terrorism, then Muslims should consistently compose a majority of those who practice terrorism.

.

What? So in order to be a major cause it needs to be a consistent majority?????

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is supported by the US.The government then oppresses its people who cant change the government because it is backed by the government leading people to move to terror. This is also the case in Jordan, Egypt and Israel.


The kingdom of Saudi Arabia isn't supported by the US. The US is supported by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In fact the US specifically avoids taking actions to piss off the Saudi's exactly because the Saudi's have about a billion dollars tied up in the US economy, and if they pull out that means a world of sh*t for the US. Why else do you think a plane full of Saudi's can get away with bombing the twin towers? AND then the US goes and bombs Afghanistan...


The US is not funding most of these oppressive Islamic regimes, and to claim otherwise is just ignorant of historical facts. Most of the caliphates have been oppressive, warlike nations ruled over by warlords. During periods of relative stability you did get quite a few peaceful and prosperous caliphates, but the vast majority of the history of Islam has been one of violence.

The US didn't cause that; the US wasn't even around to do that. Beyond this the US is not to blame for what occurs in Iran, Syria, Yeman, Oman, UAE, etc. These nations do their own thing (especially Iran. Iran flaunts all kinds of violations of international rules at the UN and the US).



The US foreign policy is a small part of what is wrong with the world today; if I had to venture an estimate I would put it somewhere around 20%. The US didn't just magically start turning the world into a warlike place starting around 100 years ago (prior to that period in time the US didn't have the military or political power to interfere with international relations on the scale that is necessary to support such claims of causation); that was happening long before the US became the world superpower.


Its really easy to blame the US for all the worlds problems, but when the time comes to fix things in the world everybody cries foul: neo-colonialism, imperial doctrine, and totalitarian objectives and what not, when the US tries to do anything about it. Thing is who is actually out trying to do anything about it? Its all well and good that some nations like Canada and Switzerland are more or less willing to leave people alone, but this doesn't actually help make situations that are already bad any better.




And on the topic of the thread more specifically: radical ideologies breed radical actions.

In the 50's and 60's radical communism was popular. In the 11th century it was radical Christianity. Today its radical Islam.

There is no correlation between Islam proper and terrorism. There is a connection between extremism and terrorism.

NT

I don't think that particular line is found in the Holy Literature though.

Thats the thing. Religions are dynamic. Something doesn't have to be in the Koran or a Hadith to be part of Islam. It only has to be part of the dynamic religion. And from the numerous clerics in prominent positions who issue fatwas supporting terrorism, its easy to see that it is clearly endorsed by various elements of the Islamic religion.

And to be fair, there are elements of the Islamic religion that denounce it.

Exactically. Which divides the religion itself from the lessons distributed by various nutcases, and reduces the factor of which religion it is in particular to irrelevance.
The nutcase preacher might as well be a Christian Pastor, a Rabbi or a Communist Guerilla Leader.

That doesn't divide the religion from the lessons, though. The religion, as a whole, is made up of its followers as well as its texts. A lunatic Islamic cleric teaching terrorism based on his interpretation of the Koran is just as much a part of the Islamic religion as a moderate Muslim who denounces terrorism.

The rejection of certain aspects of religions based on their lack of foundation within tradition or scripture is common from within religions, but has no real place in an objective analysis of the religion. If we were to do that, we would have to reject all Protestants as being Christians, since the Catholic Church did, and we would certainly have to reject Mormons as being Christians. Yet, when we study these religions, Mormonism is presented as Christianity just as much as Islamic terror is presented as a facet of Islam.

[/URL].

Hehe, an appeal to emotion. I don't work that way, sorry.

It was an appeal to Captain obvious. He needs to save the day.

Yeah. How about the seventh century or so when Islam was born? A random sample of years--or, more likely given the uncertain nature of the older data, a sample of centuries--would be rather convincing. A lot of the data wouldn't be as "nice" as what we can collect now, but as a scientist you have to work with what you have.

pfft, I know you're not serious now.

You've again slipped into the fallacy of unfalsifiable criteria. You also seem to be hinting at a fallacy called "moving the fence." This is demonstrated by the fact that there is no academic standard for a random sample being done over 700 years for the study of any group or religion.

Why is everyone ignoring the statistics from the ICTC and the Pew surveys I listed? The ICTC gives statistics for which the majority of terror attacks between 2004 and 2005 are the direct result of Islamic extremism.Yes, but why do you stress the "Islamic" instead of the "extremism"?

See, I bet there is an even better correlation between terrorism and extremism than there is between terrorism and Islam. Just a hunch.

So, the real question would be (based on this correlation), "does Islam tend to produce extremism?"

But this is a historical question. If, over the course of Islam's history, it has been on average no more a source of extremism than other relevant causes, then I would admit that you have some fairly convincing evidence that Islam is a cause in extremism. (I would like it even better if you actually tested alternative variables on a regression.)

But you don't have that. All you have is an extremely limited, non-random sample. Thus, even if there is a correlation between Islam and terrorism today--and I'm not entirely convinced there is--statistically speaking this could just be a fluke of your sample. Had you picked a four year period four hundred years ago, you might find that a majority of terrorists were Christian. This would no more prove that Christianity causes terrorism than your four-year sample proves that Islam does.

A lunatic Islamic cleric teaching terrorism based on his interpretation of the Koran is just as much a part of the Islamic religion as a moderate Muslim who denounces terrorism.
And therefore Baruch Goldstein is a part of Judaism. Fair enough.

But can you therefore start to talk about correlation, or even causation? I don't think so.

And by the way, I don't think you can sensibly analyse a religion anyways. Maybe if you were a totally neutral third party, but hardly anyone is...and you aren't either, I'm afraid. ;)

It was an appeal to Captain obvious. He needs to save the day.
Ah, Captain Obvious. The great enemy of science and reason.

If we're talking about Islamic terror, we only need to take a sample of Islamic terror groups. We don't need to take samples of non-Islamic groups to demonstrate anything about Islamic groups.


Buh?

You have hypothesized that there is a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism. To test this hypothesis, you look only at Muslim terrorists. How on earth does this make any sense?

An analogy: Say I hypothesize that there is a causal relationship between being blonde and being stupid. To test this theory, I collect a sample set of women who have blonde hair and who have received IQ scores under 80 points. I then demonstrate that they are all both blonde and stupid. How does this support my hypothesis? Correspondingly, then, how does it support your hypothesis that Islam has a causal relationship with terrorism to demonstrate that Muslim terrorists are all Muslims and also terrorists?

Seems everyone missed the answer:

Islam does not breed terrorism. Extremism breeds terrorism.


This is a historical truth that can be verified with only a little bit of reading. Radical ideologies breed radical solutions.


In short: Islam is uncorrelated with terrorism, and no amount of analysis will ever prove otherwise.


Now you could get away with saying "Militant Islam" is associated with terrorism, but that is more or less a tautology: A group that is affiliated with terrorism is affiliated with terrorism. Well big deal; you have told us exactly jack squat.

NT

And therefore Baruch Goldstein is a part of Judaism. Fair enough.

But can you therefore start to talk about correlation, or even causation? I don't think so.

And by the way, I don't think you can sensibly analyse a religion anyways. Maybe if you were a totally neutral third party, but hardly anyone is...and you aren't either, I'm afraid. ;)

Well, perhaps no one can sensibly analyze religion. I'm as qualified as anyone though, since thats what I went to school for. hehe

But yes, Goldstein is a part of Judaism. So are the far right religious settlers in Israel, Kahane, etc. They represent an extremist form. They don't represent a large sector, or anything that we can judge Judaism as a whole by. We can't judge mainstream Judaism on the basis of Kahane any more than we can judge moderate Islam on the basis of Osama. But, there are not many instances when I will deny someone, or some group's, membership to a religion.

The question is the degree to which the extremists in Islam have made up the terrorist population, and another good question would be to ask how many terrorist supporting clerics in Islam there are. If I wanted to be a violent terrorist Jew, I don't imagine there are too many Rabbis I could look to for endorsement. But if I wanted to be a shaheed, do you think I would have a hard time finding an Islamic cleric to endorse it?

Buh?

You have hypothesized that there is a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism. To test this hypothesis, you look only at Muslim terrorists. How on earth does this make any sense?

An analogy: Say I hypothesize that there is a causal relationship between being blonde and being stupid. To test this theory, I collect a sample set of women who have blonde hair and who have received IQ scores under 80 points. I then demonstrate that they are all both blonde and stupid. How does this support my hypothesis? Correspondingly, then, how does it support your hypothesis that Islam has a causal relationship with terrorism to demonstrate that Muslim terrorists are all Muslims and also terrorists?

I think the person I responded to was making a reference to an analysis within the Muslim population, not the Muslim population as compared to outside groups.

If we're talking about Islamic terror, we only need to take a sample of Islamic terror groups. We don't need to take samples of non-Islamic groups to demonstrate anything about Islamic groups.Okay, seriously. What's the punchline. Because this has to be some long-winded statistical joke.

If I want to know something about a group, I always have to compare them to another group. More specifically, if I have a a dependent variable (terrorism) and I want to know how it is related to some independent variable (Islam), I have two basic options for comparison.

1. Take a sample of groups that are substantially the same on a variety of characteristics, but which have very different values on your dependent variable--say, a random sample that includes some terrorists and some non-terrorists with similar backgrounds and circumstances--and you see if your independent variable matches up: that is, all things being equal, is being Muslim a good predictor of terrorist activity?

2. Take a sample of groups that are substantially different on a variety of characteristics, but which have very similar values on your dependent variable--a random sample of terrorists, for instance--and you see if your independent variable also matches up. Your original correlation represents a very, very weak form of this approach--weak because you failed to consider the possibility that terrorists may be similar in other ways as well.

Notice that in either case, we make our selection based on the dependent variable. Now you want to say that you "only" have to look at "Islamic terror groups"... but your independent variable is being Islamic! You can't prove causation that way.

I mean, this goes back to Mill. You have to know this stuff.

You're confusing something incidental with something that the statistics in the ICTC have already established as a cause. Those 57% are the 57% that died because of Islamic extremism, not a 57% who died by people who just happened to be Muslim.I know that's what it says. What I'm asking for, as a scientist, is the answer to the question "how did they know?" What were the specific criteria used to determine that someone died "because of" Islamic extremism?

No, no terrorist charters call people to die for the beard.No one is saying that they did. But if they did, it wouldn't mean that beards cause terrorism if it turned out that other charters call people to die for the shaven face.

It's an analogy that is supposed to help you understand the statistics. Clearly it isn't working.

And the ICTC demonstrated that 57% of those people died because of Islamic extremism. That was the findings of the actual study, not me claiming something new based on those statistics.
Again, I understand it was the finding of the actual study. I want to know how they obtained it.

What? So in order to be a major cause it needs to be a consistent majority?????If by "consistent" you mean "persistent," then no.

However, surely you do not mean that. You yourself have been arguing that terrorists are consistently Muslim--meaning that given any random terrorist, there is a good likelihood that he/she will be Muslim.

I am saying that for you to prove causation, you need to show a relationship much broader than four years. Given the much larger sample, you would of course analyze it statistically to determine the general trends as opposed to the fluctuations in non-random samples.

Okay, seriously. What's the punchline. Because this has to be some long-winded statistical joke.

If I want to know something about a group, I always have to compare them to another group. More specifically, if I have a a dependent variable (terrorism) and I want to know how it is related to some independent variable (Islam), I have two basic options for comparison.

1. Take a sample of groups that are substantially the same on a variety of characteristics, but which have very different values on your dependent variable--say, a random sample that includes some terrorists and some non-terrorists with similar backgrounds and circumstances--and you see if your independent variable matches up: that is, all things being equal, is being Muslim a good predictor of terrorist activity?

2. Take a sample of groups that are substantially different on a variety of characteristics, but which have very similar values on your dependent variable--a random sample of terrorists, for instance--and you see if your independent variable also matches up. Your original correlation represents a very, very weak form of this approach--weak because you failed to consider the possibility that terrorists may be similar in other ways as well.

Notice that in either case, we make our selection based on the dependent variable. Now you want to say that you "only" have to look at "Islamic terror groups"... but your independent variable is being Islamic! You can't prove causation that way.

I mean, this goes back to Mill. You have to know this stuff.

If you want to know the number of a statistic within the Islamic population, you only look within the Islamic population. If you want to know the number of African Muslims to Middle Eastern Muslims, you don't need to compare them to any group outside of Islam. My statement was in response to someone who made a reference to an inner-group statistic, not a statistic of the group as a whole. :rolleyes:

Again, I understand it was the finding of the actual study. I want to know how they obtained it.

The short version - Islamic groups claim responsibility for their terrorist actions, and the charters of those Islamic groups state that their actions are because of Islam. Its pretty cut and dry. So much so, that if terror specifically as a result of Islam were a crime, the acts committed by those in the terror groups would result in guilty convictions in a court of law.

pfft, I know you're not serious now.

You've again slipped into the fallacy of unfalsifiable criteria.Not really. There are many sources that you can use to establish the extent of terrorism hundreds of years ago. Historians do it all the time.

I have already granted that the evidence will not be as clean, as certain, or as easily interpreted as the evidence we have available since the time of regular record keeping and ultimately scientific data-collecting. To hypothesize that terrorism was predominantly Christian in, say, 1640 is not "unfalsifiable." It is just more difficult to test than the hypothesis that terrorism was predominantly Muslim in 1999.

You also seem to be hinting at a fallacy called "moving the fence." This is demonstrated by the fact that there is no academic standard for a random sample being done over 700 years for the study of any group or religion.
Yes, this was hyperbole. I do not think one would have to go back to the beginning of the Muslim religion to draw a plausible connection. However, I also think it should be obvious that you need a larger sample than four non-random years (or, for that matter, twenty or even one hundred). Certainly fairly reliable information is available for at least the last two to three hundred years. I do not think it excessive to ask that studies making a general claim ("Islam is a cause of terrorism") should take as general a sample as possible.

If by "consistent" you mean "persistent," then no.

However, surely you do not mean that. You yourself have been arguing that terrorists are consistently Muslim--meaning that given any random terrorist, there is a good likelihood that he/she will be Muslim.

I am saying that for you to prove causation, you need to show a relationship much broader than four years. Given the much larger sample, you would of course analyze it statistically to determine the general trends as opposed to the fluctuations in non-random samples.

If you meet a random terrorist today, you don't need statistics from 700 years ago to conclude that terrorists today are most likely to be Muslims. You only need to know the number of Muslim terrorists today - a historical precedent does not effect the actual number of a group today.

And, as we've demonstrated with the ICTC statistics, the majority of terror attacks are a result of Islamic extremism, so it is inferred that if you do meet a random terrorist there is a good chance (at least 50%) that they will be a Muslim.

Perhaps you aren't getting it Tropical? Radical groups have done this sort of thing since time immemorial. Radical, Fundamentalist, Extremist (Whatever name you give them) have engaged in terrible acts of violence throughout history in much greater proportion than any other groups.

Islam or any other religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with the mentality of the people/groups, NOTHING to do with any specific organization, and very little to do with specific institutions.


Do I need to point out that I am about to get my degree in sociology, and that political science courses are kind of requisite courses for sociology majors? This sort of thing is covered in several of the upper division courses that get offered throughout the country.

NT

If you meet a random terrorist today, you don't need statistics from 700 years ago to conclude that terrorists today are most likely to be Muslims. You only need to know the number of Muslim terrorists today - a historical precedent does not effect the actual number of a group today.Right. But here all you have is correlation. No causation.

And, as we've demonstrated with the ICTC statistics, the majority of terror attacks are a result of Islamic extremism, so it is inferred that if you do meet a random terrorist there is a good chance (at least 50%) that they will be a Muslim.
Sure. Just so long as I don't pretend that I know he is a terrorist, even in part, because he is Muslim.

Not really. There are many sources that you can use to establish the extent of terrorism hundreds of years ago. Historians do it all the time.

I have already granted that the evidence will not be as clean, as certain, or as easily interpreted as the evidence we have available since the time of regular record keeping and ultimately scientific data-collecting. To hypothesize that terrorism was predominantly Christian in, say, 1640 is not "unfalsifiable." It is just more difficult to test than the hypothesis that terrorism was predominantly Muslim in 1999.

The fallacy of unfalsifiable criteria doesn't refer to things that are strictly unfalsifiable, but to things that are unreasonable and outside of the academic standards. Thats what you've presented here, with your demand that the only reasonable statistics regarding Islam and terrorism have a 700 year old sampling variation.

Yes, this was hyperbole. I do not think one would have to go back to the beginning of the Muslim religion to draw a plausible connection. However, I also think it should be obvious that you need a larger sample than four non-random years (or, for that matter, twenty or even one hundred). Certainly fairly reliable information is available for at least the last two to three hundred years. I do not think it excessive to ask that studies making a general claim ("Islam is a cause of terrorism") should take as general a sample as possible.

You're confusing random sampling with whole sampling. This is the total number of terror attacks over 4 years, thats actually a stronger statistic than a random sampling of 4 years at will. Nor do you make random selections for times, those are selected as part of the study. You make random selections in a population.

Of course, to find out that Islam is a cause of terrorism, all you have to do is read the Hamas charter which states that they "do it in the name of Islam." The issue here is the correlation, not the fact that it causes terrorism. Even the terrorists don't dispute that what they do is because of Islam.

Just an example of how we know, in at least some instances, that terrorism is a direct result of Islam. This is from the HAMAS charter. As we all know, Hamas is a prominent terror group:

"The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps."

It unequivocally states that all Hamas conduct is rooted in Islam. Anyone want to argue that Islam doesn't cause Hamas terrorism? According to Hamas, it does.

I think the person I responded to was making a reference to an analysis within the Muslim population, not the Muslim population as compared to outside groups.

Actually, a quick skim of the last couple of pages reveals that you were replying to AnarchyeL, who was discussing how you would have to demonstrate a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, since that was the topic of this thread.

Seems everyone missed the answer:

Islam does not breed terrorism. Extremism breeds terrorism.


This is a historical truth that can be verified with only a little bit of reading. Radical ideologies breed radical solutions.


In short: Islam is uncorrelated with terrorism, and no amount of analysis will ever prove otherwise.


Now you could get away with saying "Militant Islam" is associated with terrorism, but that is more or less a tautology: A group that is affiliated with terrorism is affiliated with terrorism. Well big deal; you have told us exactly jack squat.

NT

But we can use another approach:
Failure to submit to and accept the Current World Order breeds terrorism.

Actually, a quick skim of the last couple of pages reveals that you were replying to AnarchyeL, who was discussing how you would have to demonstrate a causal relationship between Islam and terrorism, since that was the topic of this thread.

Yes, I guess so. I went back and read it now that you mentioned it.

I said that we can demonstrate a causation of terror in Islam by looking at Muslims who admit that their terror is caused by Islam, then AnarchyeL responded by saying we would have to analyze a correlation, etc.

The fact is, only one terrorist who admits that Islam was a cause proves a causation. Assuming we accept what they say as true. It doesn't prove that Islam causes all terrorism, and no one ever claimed that. Nor does it prove that Islam causes a majority of terrorism, etc. But, it does prove that Islam causes terrorism in at least one instance. And, I think we'll find more than one if we look at the members of terror groups, virtually all of which admit that their actions are a result of Islam.

I said that we can demonstrate a causation of terror in Islam by looking at Muslims who admit that their terror is caused by Islam, then AnarchyeL responded by saying we would have to analyze a correlation, etc.

The fact is, only one terrorist who admits that Islam was a cause proves a causation. Assuming we accept what they say as true.

So wonders why one should assume a terrorist is able to honestly answer that question.

There are rapists who 'admit' that a woman wearing a short skirt was a 'cause' in their actions. Should we assume that this is the case? Does it demonstrate that short skirts are a cause of rape?

Yes, I guess so. I went back and read it now that you mentioned it.

I said that we can demonstrate a causation of terror in Islam by looking at Muslims who admit that their terror is caused by Islam, then AnarchyeL responded by saying we would have to analyze a correlation, etc.

The fact is, only one terrorist who admits that Islam was a cause proves a causation. Assuming we accept what they say as true. It doesn't prove that Islam causes all terrorism, and no one ever claimed that. Nor does it prove that Islam causes a majority of terrorism, etc. But, it does prove that Islam causes terrorism in at least one instance. And, I think we'll find more than one if we look at the members of terror groups, virtually all of which admit that their actions are a result of Islam.

A while ago, I was fiddling around with googletrends, and tried to corelate the origin of jihadis with the search-term 'islam'. Results were highly inconclusive. Then, I tried to corelate said origin with the search-term 'arab'.
Guess what? BINGO!

So wonders why one should assume a terrorist is able to honestly answer that question.

There are rapists who 'admit' that a woman wearing a short skirt was a 'cause' in their actions. Should we assume that this is the case? Does it demonstrate that short skirts are a cause of rape?

You've slipped into a fallacious analogy here by comparing street crime with terror. The motives are different, and there are no massive worldwide organizations of rapists.

Aside from the fact that the analogy is fallacious, a rapist could very well believe that the short skirt caused them to do it. In the same fashion, a terrorist obviously believes that what they are doing is part of Islam. This is reinforced by the fact that Hamas administrators, who do not engage in terror, praise suicide bombers as shaeeds, and Islamic clerics at the highest levels (such as those in Iran) praise terror group members as being good Muslims.

But we can use another approach:
Failure to submit to and accept the Current World Order breeds terrorism.


While I can see how you might make that argument I must respectfully disagree. Ideological disagreements do indeed have a tendency to spark conflicts, but I don't think you can rightly establish a correlation between acts of terrorism and conflicts in general to the point where the same relationship holds for both.

Martin Luther King Jr. disagreed with the current establishment, but he never went out and tried to blow people away.


His more "radical" contemporary Malcolm X and his group was not as "discriminating" when it came to what actions were necessary though.

NT

The fallacy of unfalsifiable criteria doesn't refer to things that are strictly unfalsifiable, but to things that are unreasonable and outside of the academic standards. Thats what you've presented here, with your demand that the only reasonable statistics regarding Islam and terrorism have a 700 year old sampling variation.I told you the 700 year figure was hyperbole, meant only to point out just how long Islam has been around--against the pitifully small and non-random sample presented here.

Surely you don't think that the four most recent years are a representative sample of Islam? I can virtually guarantee that if you tried to publish this study, the very first criticism you would receive is, "what about x years ago?" ... Immediately followed by, "only one independent variable?"

Now, as you surely know, it often happens that the very first studies on a question are likely to use the most readily available data set. This might be treated as a "direction for further study"--indeed, the authors themselves are likely to say so--but few serious scientists are likely to accept it as conclusive evidence of causation.

You're confusing random sampling with whole sampling. This is the total number of terror attacks over 4 years, thats actually a stronger statistic than a random sampling of 4 years at will.Look, you can either treat it as four datapoints where the unit of analysis is the year, or you can treat it as one datapoint where the unit of analysis is a four-year period. Either way, your sample is non-random--and not large enough compared to the history of Islam (not to mention the history of terrorism) to justify its conclusions.

If terrorism had started twenty years ago, a non-random four-year sample might convince me that a relationship is probable. When terrorism has been around for as long as history can remember, no sensible scientist is going to accept a claim based on the four most recent years of that history. You don't need every year, and you might not go back to ancient Greece--but you will need a hell of a lot more than extremely recent history, with all of its own particular idiosyncracies.

Nor do you make random selections for times, those are selected as part of the study. You make random selections in a population.Sure you can make random selections for times. As a political scientist, if I want to test a claim about the editorial policy of the New York Times and U.S. public opinion over the course of the last 100 years, I am unlikely to be able to collect all the data I need (content analysis and some measure of public opinion) for every year--so I may take a random sample, like every fourth year.

Of course, you could say that your unit of analysis is the individual act of terrorism... in which case you still have a non-random sample of the last few years, out of the entire history of terrorism.

It doesn't matter what unit of analysis you choose. There are simply far too many alternative variables (which your studies have not bothered to consider) for it to be plausible that a four-year sample proves the case.

You've slipped into a fallacious analogy here by comparing street crime with terror. The motives are different, and there are no massive worldwide organizations of rapists.

Aside from the fact that the analogy is fallacious, a rapist could very well believe that the short skirt caused them to do it. In the same fashion, a terrorist obviously believes that what they are doing is part of Islam. This is reinforced by the fact that Hamas administrators, who do not engage in terror, praise suicide bombers as shaeeds, and Islamic clerics at the highest levels (such as those in Iran) praise terror group members as being good Muslims.

You didn't answer the question.

Of course rapists can believe they do it for short skirts. Of course terrorists can believe they do it for Islam.

But DO they do it for those reasons? DOES short skirts, or Islam, cause rape, or terrorism? I mean, that is the topic at hand, amirite?

I told you the 700 year figure was hyperbole, meant only to point out just how long Islam has been around--against the pitifully small and non-random sample presented here.

Surely you don't think that the four most recent years are a representative sample of Islam? I can virtually guarantee that if you tried to publish this study, the very first criticism you would receive is, "what about x years ago?" ... Immediately followed by, "only one independent variable?"

Again, this isn't subject to random sampling. You're harping about non-random sampling when we have a whole sample, which is actually better.

Nor are the four most recent years representative of Islam outside of those four years. Nor is more than one independent variable necessary (or even possible) for a whole sample. I'm not sure if you know the limitations of random sampling, when it is and isn't used.

However, the study does tell us about Islam today. And if someone were to say "what about x years ago?" that would be a fallacy, called moving the fence. You could "what about x years ago?" all the way to 700 years ago, and further. You've yet to demonstrate a sound basis for why more than 4 years is necessary.

Now, as you surely know, it often happens that the very first studies on a question are likely to use the most readily available data set. This might be treated as a "direction for further study"--indeed, the authors themselves are likely to say so--but few serious scientists are likely to accept it as conclusive evidence of causation.

The statistics alone aren't what demonstrate causation. What demonstrates causation is the context of the statistics - Muslim terror groups admit causation, thus, when referring to Muslim terror groups that have not explictly admitted such it is reasonable (and proper) to infer causation. This was what Franz Boas outlined using the inductive method in cultural anthropology.

Look, you can either treat it as four datapoints where the unit of analysis is the year, or you can treat it as one datapoint where the unit of analysis is a four-year period. Either way, your sample is non-random--and not large enough compared to the history of Islam (not to mention the history of terrorism) to justify its conclusions.

Again, its not subject to random sampling because its a whole sample. The two are exclusive. I'm starting to question how familiar you are with stats, compared to how you're trying to present yourself.

Since the rest of your response harps about random sampling, which this data isn't subject to (as a whole sample), I'll just stop here. :headbang:

If you want to know the number of a statistic within the Islamic population, you only look within the Islamic population.Right. But if you want to know if that statistic means anything (i.e. is there a relationship between the percentage and being Muslim), you need to compare them to something else.

Kicking the dead horse another time, if you just look at Muslims you will find that an astounding proportion of them have right hands. This does not mean that right hands cause a conversion to Islam, or that Islam causes people to grow right hands. We know this because we compare the proportion of right hands among Muslims to the proportion of right hands among non-Muslims--and it turns out that they are almost identical.

The short version - Islamic groups claim responsibility for their terrorist actions, and the charters of those Islamic groups state that their actions are because of Islam. Its pretty cut and dry. So much so, that if terror specifically as a result of Islam were a crime, the acts committed by those in the terror groups would result in guilty convictions in a court of law.Yes, but surely Christian terrorist groups (e.g. abortion-clinic bombers) also claim responsibility for their actions, and the charters of those Christian groups state their actions are because of their Christian beliefs. It's pretty cut and dry. So much so, that if terror specifically as a result of Christian beliefs were a crime, the acts committed by those in the terror groups would result in guilty convictions in a court of law.

While I can see how you might make that argument I must respectfully disagree. Ideological disagreements do indeed have a tendency to spark conflicts, but I don't think you can rightly establish a correlation between acts of terrorism and conflicts in general to the point where the same relationship holds for both.

Martin Luther King Jr. disagreed with the current establishment, but he never went out and tried to blow people away.


His more "radical" contemporary Malcolm X and his group was not as "discriminating" when it came to what actions were necessary though.

NT
I don't see an ideological disagreement as ( a ) rootcause: I see as the root-cause dissatisfaction with the current geopolitical arrangements.
What we - in the 5 Veto Powers must do - is press for a total disarmament of any and all groups whose approach towards the World Order is less than... shall we say, totaslly submissive and docile.

We have a choice between Pax Romana and Nuclear Guerilla War.

PS:
Ethics are ethnic-related: therefore, cross-cultural ethical understandings are chimera's, and no attempts to obtain these should be made.

You didn't answer the question.

Of course rapists can believe they do it for short skirts. Of course terrorists can believe they do it for Islam.

But DO they do it for those reasons? DOES short skirts, or Islam, cause rape, or terrorism? I mean, that is the topic at hand, amirite?

I didn't answer the question because its a logical fallacy. It would be like me asking "have you stopped beating your wife" and then expecting you to answer. You could, but due to the fallacious nature you wouldn't be obligated to.

Perhaps you should amend your fallacy and present a good analogy?

I can't tell you if short skirts cause rape. I can tell you that the majority of terror groups, and the entire Islamic terror infrastructure, is built upon the premise that what they are doing is within the scope of Islam. Children who are sent to die as shaeeds are not taught anything from a very young age except that their destiny is to be a shaeed, and its absurd to believe that their motive for becoming shaeeds is anything but religious in nature.

Again, the fact that terrorists admit that Islam is the source and root of their terrorism (though the don't call it terrorism, per se) would be enough to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Asking for further proof would be putting you in the realm of unfalsifiable criteria. That is exactly the type of proof used in courts of law and in qualitative case studies.

Yes, but surely Christian terrorist groups (e.g. abortion-clinic bombers) also claim responsibility for their actions, and the charters of those Christian groups state their actions are because of their Christian beliefs. It's pretty cut and dry. So much so, that if terror specifically as a result of Christian beliefs were a crime, the acts committed by those in the terror groups would result in guilty convictions in a court of law.

Christianity is a cause of that. In fact, that may be more true than Islam being a cause of various terror actions. The fact is, the anti-abortion agenda results only from Christianity. It has no other real basis in Western society, and certainly no other basis that the abortion clinic bombers rely upon. Christianity is a cause in Christian terror, such as in the cases of abortion clinic bombings, just as Islam is a factor in children becoming "shaeeds."

The fact is, only one terrorist who admits that Islam was a cause proves a causation.Not at all.

Plenty of religious people believe they are doing God's will--i.e. that religion is a causal factor in their behavior. Some people think that God wants them to kill, so they kill. Other people think that God wants them to save puppies, so they save puppies.

Now, does "God" tell them what to do, or do they decide to do what they want, then rationalize it as "God's will"? I don't know. But I do know that the claim to doing God's will is extremely diverse. Thus, to claim that a particular version of "God's will"--a particular set of religious beliefs--tends to promote one sort of behavior over another, you will have to show me more than one case.

But, it does prove that Islam causes terrorism in at least one instance.Even if you are satisfied that Islam causes terrorism in one instance, or even many recent incidents, this would be irrelevant to the anti-Muslim political ideology you are trying to support. If Islam only became associated with terrorism in the last hundred years or so (for instance), then it makes more sense to figure out what caused the transition and to work on that than to attack an entire religion and all the people who subscribe to it.

I didn't answer the question because its a logical fallacy. It would be like me asking "have you stopped beating your wife" and then expecting you to answer. You could, but due to the fallacious nature you wouldn't be obligated to.

So it's a flawed analogy because rapists aren't an organized worldwide group, and because rape is "street crime" and not "terror?"

Sounds like you're saying the only comparison one can make with terrorists is to... other terrorists. How liberating!

And I wouldn't answer that kind of question because it is based on a premise - I've ever beaten my wife - that is untrue (and slanderous). You on the other hand, I suspect just don't like the implications because you argue that Islam causes terrorism, and wouldn't want to get caught by the PC police saying that short skirts cause rape.


I can't tell you if short skirts cause rape. I can tell you that the majority of terror groups, and the entire Islamic terror infrastructure, is built upon the premise that what they are doing is within the scope of Islam. Children who are sent to die as shaeeds are not taught anything from a very young age except that their destiny is to be a shaeed, and its absurd to believe that their motive for becoming shaeeds is anything but religious in nature.

Oh, why is it absurd?

Are you saying economics, politics, education, or just plain hatred have NOTHING to do with their motivations?

You're saying someone is truly religious, because they get raised by terrorists to become terrorists, and therefore Islam causes terrorism, because those terrorists claim to follow Islam. This seems a bit circular to me, but maybe I'm just up past my beddy-bye time.

Again, the fact that terrorists admit that Islam is the source and root of their terrorism (though the don't call it terrorism, per se) would be enough to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Prove what? That Islam is guilty? Or... what?

And I needn't remind you that this isn't a court of law. Courts of laws aren't exactly infallible anymore than logic is.

Not at all.

Plenty of religious people believe they are doing God's will--i.e. that religion is a causal factor in their behavior. Some people think that God wants them to kill, so they kill. Other people think that God wants them to save puppies, so they save puppies.

Now, does "God" tell them what to do, or do they decide to do what they want, then rationalize it as "God's will"? I don't know. But I do know that the claim to doing God's will is extremely diverse. Thus, to claim that a particular version of "God's will"--a particular set of religious beliefs--tends to promote one sort of behavior over another, you will have to show me more than one case.

God doesn't actually have to tell them. Their belief, which is by definition their religion, be it Christianity or Islam, is a cause. Religion must have belief, by definition. And you may not believe that one case alone is strong enough for you believe that the religion in general causes it, thats fine. However, one case along is strong enough to prove that religion caused it in one case. And that, by definition, is proof of causation.

Even if you are satisfied that Islam causes terrorism in one instance, or even many recent incidents, this would be irrelevant to the anti-Muslim political ideology you are trying to support. If Islam only became associated with terrorism in the last hundred years or so (for instance), then it makes more sense to figure out what caused the transition and to work on that than to attack an entire religion and all the people who subscribe to it.

Actually, there hasn't been that big of a paradigm shift. Forms of toned-down 'terrorism' have been a part of Bedouin culture long before Islam even existed. Such as ritualized kidnapping for ransom. But terrorism in the sense that we know it is a modern occurance, it doesn't have a large historical precedent. No one would call the ritualized kidnappings of Medieval bedouins and Muslims 'terror', even though it fits the hallmarks.

The transition could be little things like cheap weapons and globalization. Or, we could listen to the terrorists themselves, who claim that it is Islam. I'd go with the latter. It makes more sense when evaluating a culture to do it via an emic method rather than an edic method.

I don't see an ideological disagreement as ( a ) rootcause: I see as the root-cause dissatisfaction with the current geopolitical arrangements.
What we - in the 5 Veto Powers must do - is press for a total disarmament of any and all groups whose approach towards the World Order is less than... shall we say, totaslly submissive and docile.

We have a choice between Pax Romana and Nuclear Guerilla War.

PS:
Ethics are ethnic-related: therefore, cross-cultural ethical understandings are chimera's, and no attempts to obtain these should be made.


Essentially dissatisfaction with the current geopolitical arrangement differs from "ideological disagreement" in only a matter of degrees. The stakes are much higher for countries than they are for individuals, even demagogues.

And while I agree with the principle behind what you are saying it seems counter to world progress. Pax Americana could have been implemented, but it wasn't. The political realities are way more complicated than they were at the time of the romans; just for starters economic interdependence on the international scale did not exist. And by what right do the 5 veto powers enforce their views upon the others? Does this truly boil down to a might makes right?

It looks to me like you are creating a false dichotomy. Perhaps in the long run we do face the choice of creating of leviathan-esque world state and a true World War to end all World Wars... But I don't think any human alive today is in possession of sufficient rational capability, information, and social understanding to be able to make that assessment with a degree of confidence to satisfy most people.

Beyond that it seems rather harsh to reduce one's choices to forcibly take over the world and reduce everyone who isn't currently a key player to "slave state..." I mean did colonialism teach us nothing?


I'm all for world peace, but I believe that at some point the costs do become too high. Now I'm not sure if they are, especially if your scenario of future progress turns out to be correct (I consider avoiding a third world war to be a very high priority), but I also consider the other option to be "less than savory."


I'm not looking to get into a morality argument here, but it seems like we can all agree that human life should be preserved, and this is what we are attempting to discuss how to do, yes?

NT

Christianity is a cause of that.Yes, but that doesn't show that Christianity is a cause of terrorism--at least not in the sense that the same has been said of Islam.

Or do you have evidence that abortion-clinic bombers are more devout Christians than the millions of other Christians who are not terrorists?

Do you have evidence that, of the terrorists (for instance) in the United States, more are motivated by their Christianity than by their (so-called) patriotism, or by their racism... or, for that matter, by their love of trees and animals?

Moreover, how do you explain the fact that abortion-clinic terrorism in the United States occurs in areas with relatively low church attendance combined with relatively high poverty and social disorganization (which appear to be among the real predictors of terrorism)?

What about the majority of anti-abortion activists--doubtless very sincere Christians--who choose to operate through conventional means, without violence?

Christian beliefs may be among the ideosyncratic motives of some terrorists, just as Muslim beliefs may be among the ideosyncratic motives of other terrorists. Neither of these facts proves that either Christianity or Islam "cultivate" or "cause" terrorist behavior.

The fact is, the anti-abortion agenda results only from Christianity.Yes, and the anti-SUV agenda results only from the philosophy of deep ecology. That does not mean that the philosophy "caused" the ELF to blow up dealerships.

So it's a flawed analogy because rapists aren't an organized worldwide group, and because rape is "street crime" and not "terror?"

Well, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. Its a fallacious analogy because the two things aren't similiar enough to infer one from the other. Being a street crime vs terror is one way, but the fact that the nature of the two crimes (one being a sex crime, the other not) among many other factors means that the two things aren't similiar enough to infer something about the former from the latter.

Sounds like you're saying the only comparison one can make with terrorists is to... other terrorists. How liberating!

And I wouldn't answer that kind of question because it is based on a premise - I've ever beaten my wife - that is untrue (and slanderous). You on the other hand, I suspect just don't like the implications because you argue that Islam causes terrorism, and wouldn't want to get caught by the PC police saying that short skirts cause rape.

Well, you really wouldn't have to answer the question. Its a fallacy called the false dichotomy. Just like I didn't really answer yours, because it was a fallacy as well.

Although, if I cared about the PC police, I wouldn't point out the recognized fact that Islam is a factor in terror. No one really likes to admit it, but as I pointed out in a previous post, its recognized in modern scholarship.

Oh, why is it absurd?

Because small children are the product of their environments, and child terrorists are conditioned by their parents and terror groups from birth to be martyrs. Suicide terrorists are raised to be suicide terrorists. Muslim women will have multiple children and set some aside strictly to become martyrs.

Are you saying economics, politics, education, or just plain hatred have NOTHING to do with their motivations?

Actually I said the opposite, if you'd actually been reading the whole thread. Economics, politics, education, etc. are all causes of terror. There isn't one single cause, its multi-faceted. However, Islam is one of those facets.

You're saying someone is truly religious, because they get raised by terrorists to become terrorists, and therefore Islam causes terrorism, because those terrorists claim to follow Islam. This seems a bit circular to me, but maybe I'm just up past my beddy-bye time.

You must be up past your beddy-bye time, because that isn't what I said. Terrorists believe that what they are doing is part of Islam. They believe that they are doing it for Islam. They believe that Islam is their motivation in life. All of those things are explictly outlined in the Hamas charter. Thus, it is their belief in Islam that causes terror.

Prove what? That Islam is guilty? Or... what?

And I needn't remind you that this isn't a court of law. Courts of laws aren't exactly infallible anymore than logic is.

No, prove that Islam is a cause of terror. But, if you want to reject legal and academic standards, both of which have been conformed to in an effort to demonstrate that Islam is a factor in terror, in lieu of your own shifting standards I'm not sure I can prove anything to you.

Yes, but that doesn't show that Christianity is a cause of terrorism--at least not in the sense that the same has been said of Islam.

It does. Motivation and cause are synonyms. The fact that they were motivated by Christianity proves it was a cause. It isn't the type of cause that forced them to do it; Christianity didn't bend their arm and force them to blow up clinics. It partially motivated them to do so, making it a "cause" by definition.

Or do you have evidence that abortion-clinic bombers are more devout Christians than the millions of other Christians who are not terrorists?

Devout according to whom? Thats an arbitrary standard that can't be qualified.

Do you have evidence that, of the terrorists (for instance) in the United States, more are motivated by their Christianity than by their (so-called) patriotism, or by their racism... or, for that matter, by their love of trees and animals?

Who said "more motivated?" If they were 99.9% motivated by hate, and .1% motivated by Christianity, Christianity would still be a motive and cause, by definition.

Moreover, how do you explain the fact that abortion-clinic terrorism in the United States occurs in areas with relatively low church attendance combined with relatively high poverty and social disorganization (which appear to be among the real predictors of terrorism)?

Maybe those are other causes, too? That doesn't contradict the fact that Christianity is also a cause.

What about the majority of anti-abortion activists--doubtless very sincere Christians--who choose to operate through conventional means, without violence?

What about them? That only proves that Christianity doesn't cause a 100% rate of abortion clinic terror, not that it doesn't cause it at all.

Christian beliefs may be among the ideosyncratic motives of some terrorists, just as Muslim beliefs may be among the ideosyncratic motives of other terrorists. Neither of these facts proves that either Christianity or Islam "cultivate" or "cause" terrorist behavior.

No, what proves it is the fact that Christians who have done it admitted that it was due to their religious beliefs. That is proof in the ultimate sense that you can get in an anthropological or sociological case study.

Yes, and the anti-SUV agenda results only from the philosophy of deep ecology. That does not mean that the philosophy "caused" the ELF to blow up dealerships.

It motivated it, again, a syononym with cause. You seem to be confusing cause with force.

Now, let me ask you a question. You believe that Islam doesn't cause in any way terror, that Christianity doesn't cause in any way abortion clinic bombings, and that the ELF doesn't cause SUV burnings - do you believe that Naziism didn't cause the Holocaust?

However, one case along is strong enough to prove that religion caused it in one case. And that, by definition, is proof of causation.No, actually. It's not.

Because it does not answer the question, "Why did this Muslim become a terrorist while millions and millions of others have not?" Causation has to explain the difference between values on your independent variable. If it does not explain anything, it does not describe causation.

Forms of toned-down 'terrorism' have been a part of Bedouin culture long before Islam even existed. Such as ritualized kidnapping for ransom. But terrorism in the sense that we know it is a modern occurance, it doesn't have a large historical precedent. No one would call the ritualized kidnappings of Medieval bedouins and Muslims 'terror', even though it fits the hallmarks.As scientists we will go with the operational definition--including all things that "fit the hallmarks" rather than relying on what people would "call" the incident.

It makes more sense when evaluating a culture to do it via an emic method rather than an edic method.For a deep reading in terms of internal meanings, yes. But if you want to make comparative or universal claims, you have to use an etic approach.

Come on. This is comparative politics 101.

Well, logic is a science, fallacies are facts. Its a fallacious analogy because the two things aren't similiar enough to infer one from the other.

They are when the 'thing' being inferred is: is what a person SAYS he did a crime for, the actual 'cause?'

You're saying it is.

Both terrorism and rape are morally frowned-upon behaviours that harm other people. I don't think it's that much of a stretch.


Well, you really wouldn't have to answer the question. Its a fallacy called the false dichotomy.

I wouldn't have to answer the question, because I have freedom of speech. Not because some logical rules (apparently) say I needn't be "obligated" to.


Although, if I cared about the PC police, I wouldn't point out the recognized fact that Islam is a factor in terror. No one really likes to admit it, but as I pointed out in a previous post, its recognized in modern scholarship.

You're not saying it's a "factor in terror." you're saying Islam causes terrorism, becauses terrorists say it made them do it. Kind of like, ya know, the rapist saying "she was asking for it."

Because small children are the product of their environments, and child terrorists are conditioned by their parents and terror groups from birth to be martyrs. Suicide terrorists are raised to be suicide terrorists. Muslim women will have multiple children and set some aside strictly to become martyrs.

You said, "its absurd to believe that their motive for becoming shaeeds is anything but religious in nature."

The above quote does not explain why it's absurd. You recognize the importance of environmental influences, and then declare that no, it's not environmental, it's purely religious.


You must be up past your beddy-bye time, because that isn't what I said. Terrorists believe that what they are doing is part of Islam. They believe that they are doing it for Islam. They believe that Islam is their motivation in life. All of those things are explictly outlined in the Hamas charter. Thus, it is their belief in Islam that causes terror.

Hmm... well, I'm off to bed, but not because you've proven anything. All you're doing is saying "it's religious" and saying that if they believe that Islam is their motivation, it IS their motivation, and that if they believe it causes them to act as they do, it DOES. All you are doing is continually implying this notion that people do not lie, nor are they confused, and that terrorists ARE truly Islamic, true Muslims because they SAY they are.

If you're going to take their word at face value, you may as well admit that America is Satan too.


No, prove that Islam is a cause of terror.

That's odd, I've never known a court of law to pin blame on a religion for the actions of an individual.

But, if you want to reject legal and academic standards, both of which have been conformed to in an effort to demonstrate that Islam is a factor in terror, in lieu of your own shifting standards I'm not sure I can prove anything to you.

You got that right. Your entire effort here seems to be basically following the long line of erudite sounding individuals playing the old "Islam is evil" theme song.

Unless of course you don't think terrorism is evil, then you're simply playing the old "Islam causes terrorism" theme song. Either way, it's a crappy tune, no matter how many embellishments you employ.

Because small children are the product of their environments, and child terrorists are conditioned by their parents and terror groups from birth to be martyrs. Suicide terrorists are raised to be suicide terrorists. Muslim women will have multiple children and set some aside strictly to become martyrs.Yes, but this does not show that being Muslim causes some communities to raise their children this way.

Terrorists believe that what they are doing is part of Islam. They believe that they are doing it for Islam. They believe that Islam is their motivation in life. All of those things are explictly outlined in the Hamas charter. Thus, it is their belief in Islam that causes terror.Every devout believer in every religion believes that what they are doing is a part of their faith. They believe that they do it for their faith. They believe that their faith is their motivation in life. All of those things are explicitly outlined in the various documents that they produce.

The problem is that devout believers in every religion do a surprisingly diverse number of things. Some of them become scientists. Some of them become priests. Some of them become mothers. Some of them become terrorists.

When a variable "explains" everything, it explains nothing.

No, actually. It's not.

Because it does not answer the question, "Why did this Muslim become a terrorist while millions and millions of others have not?" Causation has to explain the difference between values on your independent variable. If it does not explain anything, it does not describe causation.

Sounds like another one of your blind, false, assertions. Can you show me a single source of worth that claims causation has to explain why?

It only has to prove a cause. It doesn't have to explain the cause. There is a causation between cold weather and ice. yet, I don't have to explain what causes the ice for the causation to exist.

For a deep reading in terms of internal meanings, yes. But if you want to make comparative or universal claims, you have to use an etic approach.

Come on. This is comparative politics 101.


No one is making comparative or universal claims. We're talking about Islam. :rolleyes:

They are when the 'thing' being inferred is: is what a person SAYS he did a crime for, the actual 'cause?'

You're saying it is.

Both terrorism and rape are morally frowned-upon behaviours that harm other people. I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

That criteria isn't really narrow enough to make a valid analogy. Both rape and shoplifting are morally frowned-upon behaviors that harm other people, too, but we can't compare the two. As are terrorism and smoking cigarettes.

I wouldn't have to answer the question, because I have freedom of speech. Not because some logical rules (apparently) say I needn't be "obligated" to.

Well, you're not in some alternate universe where you're forced to answer questions based on logic. You don't have freedom of speech, either, since you're on a privately owned message board.

You're not saying it's a "factor in terror." you're saying Islam causes terrorism, becauses terrorists say it made them do it. Kind of like, ya know, the rapist saying "she was asking for it."

Well, here I was, saying "its a factor of terror" exactly. Factor, again, is a synonym with cause. Islam does cause terror, but it isn't the only cause. Very little has a single cause.

You said, "its absurd to believe that their motive for becoming shaeeds is anything but religious in nature."

The above quote does not explain why it's absurd. You recognize the importance of environmental influences, and then declare that no, it's not environmental, it's purely religious.

There are no environmental factors on small children that could influence it. You're comparing my statements to terrorists in general, and the terror infrastructure, with that of how terror relates to small children.

And, if you've ever lived in or visited an Islamic country, you might be shocked at how much Islam is their environment. If you admit environmental causes, then you must also admit that Islam is a cause, as Islam is part of the environment.

Hmm... well, I'm off to bed, but not because you've proven anything. All you're doing is saying "it's religious" and saying that if they believe that Islam is their motivation, it IS their motivation, and that if they believe it causes them to act as they do, it DOES. All you are doing is continually implying this notion that people do not lie, nor are they confused, and that terrorists ARE truly Islamic, true Muslims because they SAY they are.

Oh, we're going to do the "truly Islamic" thing, huh? The no true scottsman fallacy. The only people who dispute if they are "truly Muslim" are other Muslims. You wont find a scholarly source of worth that disputes that Muslim extremists are Muslim. In fact, when we study Islam, a large part of if is dedicated to extremist Islam.

SNIP

NT


This snip isn't meant as churlish.

What I am saying, is that my model for global policy isn't based on Disraeli or Gladstone, but quite simply based on Shi Wang Di.

Rights are irrelevant, for they are based on subjective ethics.

I don't pretend to use a higher standard in this than: The Race Shall Survive!

I define Race as Humanity in general, I have no patience or sympathy with 'ethnic' definitions of Humanity.

My position is and remains simple: we are in a position to enforce a Golden Path upon Humanity, and we shall do so.

PS: Freedom must, of necessity, include the Freedom to do bad.
National Self Determination is a Freedom.
In a nuclear age, this means that we can only give National Self Determination to those we can trust - which means: the current geopolitical establishment only.

Many of the people who try to prove something about Islamic terror are seriously out of whack. Media and spinsters are deceptively good at taking the words of someone out of mainstream society and make that person look evil, even when they're from foreign countries. Too many Americans believe Castro is a Demon simply because that is what Cuban media magnates who left the country in protest tell them. American media only uses quotes from Ahmedinejad to portray him negatively, but I would like to cross reference it with what Al Jazeera will make of it. It even happened in the Netherlands where Pim Fortuyn was made out to be a horrible person, and his thinking was only rationalised in his own works or after he was dead and there was nothing to misrepresent. Some thing with terrorist. Everybody thinks all Palestinian terrorists organizations want to impose sharia law, cut off hands and necks, and dress up their wives like ghosts in creepy bhurkas. Just because the Taliban was like that doesn't mean all religious muslims are the same. You should go to Syria sometime. It doesn't compare to western democracy, but they don't jump on foreigners who exit the plane, armed with daggers and bomb belts. People are just unable to understand the subtlety and agendas of people who tell you things. Do some research before you form a damning opinion.

Many of the people who try to prove something about Islamic terror are seriously out of whack. Media and spinsters are deceptively good at taking the words of someone out of mainstream society and make that person look evil, even when they're from foreign countries. Too many Americans believe Castro is a Demon simply because that is what Cuban media magnates who left the country in protest tell them. American media only uses quotes from Ahmedinejad to portray him negatively, but I would like to cross reference it with what Al Jazeera will make of it. It even happened in the Netherlands where Pim Fortuyn was made out to be a horrible person, and his thinking was only rationalised in his own works or after he was dead and there was nothing to misrepresent. Some thing with terrorist. Everybody thinks all Palestinian terrorists organizations want to impose sharia law, cut off hands and necks, and dress up their wives like ghosts in creepy bhurkas. Just because the Taliban was like that doesn't mean all religious muslims are the same. You should go to Syria sometime. It doesn't compare to western democracy, but they don't jump on foreigners who exit the plane, armed with daggers and bomb belts. People are just unable to understand the subtlety and agendas of people who tell you things. Do some research before you form a damning opinion.


Whaffor?
The why's are irrelevant.
All we gotta do is take out the who's.

BTW: I've been to Syria. I like Assad a lot better than I like the Saudi's.

It does. Motivation and cause are synonyms.No, they're not. Good luck getting a social scientist to believe that they are.

The fact that they were motivated by Christianity proves it was a cause.The fact that they were motivated by Christian beliefs only tells us something about our sample: namely, terrorist acts (blowing up abortion clinics) based on Christian beliefs. For all we know, if they had not been Christian, they would have found something else to blow up--perhaps to address frustrations of which they are not even aware. What we do know for sure is that their being Christian does extremely little to explain their terrorism... because (practically) everyone else involved is a Christian, too. The abortion doctor is probably a Christian. The nurses probably are, too. Chances are, the woman getting an abortion and the man who impregnated her are both Christian, too. Hell, for all we know these people are all taking part in the procedure because they believe it would be "unchristian" to bring an unwanted child into the world. Indeed, I have heard many people say just that.

Does that mean that being Christian is a "cause," in any general sense, of getting an abortion? Of course not--no more than the purported or immediate motivations of terrorists prove that Christianity is a "cause" of terrorism.

General statements always require comparison. Really, this is first-year stuff.

It partially motivated them to do so, making it a "cause" by definition.Yes, but a local cause at best. If it is a motivation for being a terrorist, and simultaneously a motivation for being a pacifist (which it surely is), then you cannot claim that it "causes" one or the other in a general sense unless you collect data that shows that it usually causes a particular one.

But if it is not a general cause of terrorism, there is no reason to criticize it in general, as has been the point of this thread.

Devout according to whom? Thats an arbitrary standard that can't be qualified.No, "devout" is a conceptual variable that needs to be operationalized. You can't decide that my standard is "arbitrary" before I've even given you a standard.

Since you're so willing to believe people's self-analysis, you might work with survey data--including such questions as "Do you feel that your devotion to your faith is (very weak.... weak... somewhat weak... neutral/don't know... somewhat strong... strong... very strong)?"

You might supplement this data with information on church attendance, Bible ownership and regularity of reading, and all sorts of similar information. A factor analysis could help in determining which of these describe a coherent variable.

Who said "more motivated?" If they were 99.9% motivated by hate, and .1% motivated by Christianity, Christianity would still be a motive and cause, by definition.Yes, but you're still missing the point. Even if you can prove your case to the satisfaction of nitpicking scientists, you still can't generalize from one case.

If one person in a thousand were motivated by Christianity to become a terrorist, and the other 999 were motivated by Christianity to become pacifists, obviously it would make more sense to call Christianity a cause of pacifism rather than a cause of terrorism? Well, the fact of the matter is probably closer to this: Christianity motivates various people to do a wide variety of things, while it "causes" (in a general sense) very, very few of them.

Maybe those are other causes, too? That doesn't contradict the fact that Christianity is also a cause.Yes, but in science we are always interested in predictive relationships. The fact that a few people are motivated to terrorism by Christian beliefs does not make Christian belief a very useful predictor of terrorism. Other causes appear to be much more general, and thus much more important--at least when one is attempting to formulate general principles, such as whether or not to adopt an anti-Christian or anti-Muslim ideology.



What about them? That only proves that Christianity doesn't cause a 100% rate of abortion clinic terror, not that it doesn't cause it at all.You're still missing the critical question.

In a large population (Christian opponents to abortion) in which the vast majority are not terrorists, but a small minority are driven to terrorism, the causal question is, "what is different about these opponents to abortion that drives them to terrorism"? The fact that an opponent to abortion is Christian does not tell us much at all. Certainly if I meet an anti-abortion activist and find out he/she is Christian, I do not infer from this that he/she is more likely to commit a terrorist act.

See? It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't predict anything. While it may be a motivation in the mind of the terrorist, it does not tell us anything about how the terrorist differs from the non-terrorist. Both are Christians.

No, what proves it is the fact that Christians who have done it admitted that it was due to their religious beliefs. That is proof in the ultimate sense that you can get in an anthropological or sociological case study.Since when?

Here is the form of most anthropological and sociological research today:

1. Subjects A say that they do X for cultural reason Y.
2. Behavior X is probably actually related to circumstance Z, since they have a similar history and culture to subjects B and C, but B and C do not do X. The only major difference between subjects is that B and C are not subject to circumstance Z.
3. Circumstance Z, not cultural reason Y, is probably the cause of behavior X.

You seem to be confusing cause with force.No, but you are explicitly confusing cause with motivation. You assume, moreover, that people are relatively knowledgable of their own motivations--a dogma that most current social scientists would treat with some skepticism.

You believe that Islam doesn't cause in any way terror, that Christianity doesn't cause in any way abortion clinic bombings, and that the ELF doesn't cause SUV burnings - do you believe that Naziism didn't cause the Holocaust?I don't think I need to explain the fallacy here; I'm sure you already know.

For the record, I never said that I believe Islam and Christianity do not motivate many terrorists... I have merely pointed out that given the large number of claimed motivations, combined with the large number of things that Islam and Christianity also cause, one cannot make the scientific generalization that either Islam or Christianity "causes" terror.

Neither is a very good predictor of terrorist behavior, and both "explain"--in the local sense of explicit motivations on which you keep harping--virtually everything, and therefore nothing.

If this was the 60s there's be a disporportionate listing of Marxist/Maoist groups instead. It's all about "What Scares Americans Today?"


thats not fair...i will say i am scared of radical fundamentalists...cutting off my head,or my childrens,which they seem to have a proclivity to do...and anyone that behaves in that manner deserves my disdain,disgust and,,,,,wrath!

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I was working under a wholly different conception of what I thought you were suggesting than what you were actually espousing.


What you are suggesting runs entirely counter to the entire progression of history. No society has even been remotely similar to what you suggest trying. And while I agree with you that when it comes to the species the species trumps all other concerns, national or otherwise, it remains to be seen whether humans can put aside their nationalistic loyalties long enough to allow you to implement this sort of thing. Or do you implement this under threat of annihilation?



I mean I'm all for saving the species from itself, but I always opt for the much less bloody and what I think would be more successful in the long term of simply taking a sizeable group of intelligent, self-moderated individuals and take them into space to create a new life for thsemselves somewhere else in the cosmos. What you're suggesting seems an invitation to war. It might save us in the long run from self-annihilation but the costs are going to sizeable from the start.

In principle I agree that giving national self-determination is most prudently given only to those you can trust not to engage in a wildly self-destructive or mutually destructive behaviors, but how do you propose to create the situation whereby any nation, set of nations, group (whatever you want to call it) will be in the position/have the authority to make such a decision and enforce it?


NT

Sounds like another one of your blind, false, assertions. Can you show me a single source of worth that claims causation has to explain why?By "explain," I meant "correlate to," which I assumed would be evident from the context.

In other words if you have a population and only some members become terrorists, any causal variable should have a low value for the non-terrorists and a high value for the terrorists. This is all a scientist means by "explaining" the difference.

It only has to prove a cause. It doesn't have to explain the cause. There is a causation between cold weather and ice. yet, I don't have to explain what causes the ice for the causation to exist.No, but you do have to show that when it gets cold, ice forms.

You have not shown that when people convert to Islam, they also drift closer to terrorism.

No one is making comparative or universal claims. We're talking about Islam. :rolleyes:

Yes, and you are saying that Islam is more prone to terrorism than other beliefs. Otherwise, you would have no basis for making an anti-Muslim case.

From the beginning, this thread has relied on statistics that consider all terrorist groups, not just Muslim ones. If you want to pretend you are a traditional "folk" sociologist, a real master of emic analysis, then you will have to give up on this piece of comparative data.

So which is it? Are you making an argument about the structure of Arabic thought, or about the causes of global terrorism?

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I was working under a wholly different conception of what I thought you were suggesting than what you were actually espousing.


What you are suggesting runs entirely counter to the entire progression of history. No society has even been remotely similar to what you suggest trying. And while I agree with you that when it comes to the species the species trumps all other concerns, national or otherwise, it remains to be seen whether humans can put aside their nationalistic loyalties long enough to allow you to implement this sort of thing. Or do you implement this under threat of annihilation?



I mean I'm all for saving the species from itself, but I always opt for the much less bloody and what I think would be more successful in the long term of simply taking a sizeable group of intelligent, self-moderated individuals and take them into space to create a new life for thsemselves somewhere else in the cosmos. What you're suggesting seems an invitation to war. It might save us in the long run from self-annihilation but the costs are going to sizeable from the start.

In principle I agree that giving national self-determination is most prudently given only to those you can trust not to engage in a wildly self-destructive or mutually destructive behaviors, but how do you propose to create the situation whereby any nation, set of nations, group (whatever you want to call it) will be in the position/have the authority to make such a decision and enforce it?


NT

My principles sound harsh, and I am accustomed to having to explain them.
I'm not bothered with that :)

What I am saying is that Humanity has, for the first time ever, multiple ways to totally exterminate itself ( Racial Suicide By Nuke and by ecological mismanagement) .
If that be progress, then I am eager to undo Progress.
The Race Shall Survive!

I suggest what I suggest: if the children of a lesser God are unwilling to submit to the summary judgement of their superiors, than such judgments WILL be enforced under the threat of total extermination.

What I am suggesting has been done before, and quite succesfully IMHO.

Wikilinks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28philosophy%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?
the fact that the large majority of oppressed people in the world today are muslims; hence why muslims are more likely to resort to terrorism to fight back at their oppressors? pretty basic rationality really... shouldn't require a genius mind to realise this...

the fact that the large majority of oppressed people in the world today are muslims; hence why muslims are more likely to resort to terrorism to fight back at their oppressors? pretty basic rationality really...

Let me reverse the issue here:

I can argue that the reason for terror is simply our lack of ruthlessness.

PS: as I've stated a few times earlier, I don't buy the terror-islam link.

Muslims fighting Muslims who oppress them and just happen to be supported by westerners. quick to make all muslims look like terrorists with this thread to fit your zionist agenda arent we?
More like Muslims fighting Muslims in order to oppress them. Look at the Islamic Extremists. What are their goals? Not freedom and democracy but rather repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, religious theocracy. Fact is that the current regimes in many Muslim countries, like Egypt for example, have used Islamic extremists to fight and destroy the secular democratic elements in their society and now struggle to keep their Islamist attack dogs in check.

Let me reverse the issue here:

I can argue that the reason for terror is simply our lack of ruthlessness.

PS: as I've stated a few times earlier, I don't buy the terror-islam link.
"lack of ruthlessness" isn't exclusive to terrorism, but i won't diverge. i don't buy into the terror/islam link either, just as i don't buy into the black-american/crime link, even if statistics show that there is a higher percentage of crime among black americans.

my point is, if you have two countries, one where the majority of the population is christian and one where the majority is muslim, the country where the people are (or feel) oppressed will logically show the highest statistics of terrorism, regardless of whichever one that is. as a result, one religion will come out as being more prone to terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded virtually for that reason...

You'll like this thread here, dude. Have a read:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314
Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic-supremacist organization that doesn't just hate the west for interfering in Muslim lands, but also for not being "moral" enough. People like Hassan al Banna advocated worldwide Islamic revolution. Worldwide, not just in Muslim lands.

"lack of ruthlessness" isn't exclusive to terrorism, but i won't diverge. i don't buy into the terror/islam link either, just as i don't buy into the black-american/crime link, even if statistics show that there is a higher percentage of crime among black americans.

my point is, if you have two countries, one where the majority of the population is christian and one where the majority is muslim, the country where the people are (or feel) oppressed will logically show the highest statistics of terrorism, regardless of whichever one that is. as a result, one religion will come out as being more prone to terrorism.


Violent expressions of, erm, social disaproval like terrorism are more likely to occur when a population believes that such a tactic can have a positive pay-off.

Ours, then, is the task of making sure that such acts have very negative pay-offs.

The existence of terrorism ( regardless of who and where ) is IMHO not the result of a crooked game, but rather the result of a lax world-order in which retribution is not exercised with sufficient ardour.

Violent expressions of, erm, social disaproval like terrorism are more likely to occur when a population believes that such a tactic can have a positive pay-off.

Ours, then, is the task of making sure that such acts have very negative pay-offs.

The existence of terrorism ( regardless of who and where ) is IMHO not the result of a crooked game, but rather the result of a lax world-order in which retribution is not exercised with sufficient ardour.
terrorism will always occur whenever people are (or feel) oppressed by their own or foreign governments. oppression leads to extremism and extremism leads to terrorism. it's the law of human nature (however unfortunate that may be). fighting back without addressing the root causes will never abolish terrorism, just make it worse. fighting terrorism leads no inevitable loss of innocent lives, which feeds right into the hands of extremist leaders who then have no difficulty of finding increasing number of recruits.

the fact that the large majority of oppressed people in the world today are muslims; hence why muslims are more likely to resort to terrorism to fight back at their oppressors? pretty basic rationality really... shouldn't require a genius mind to realise this...
Really? Who's got it worse, some kid starving to death in Zimbabwe or some kid attending religious school in Saudi Arabia? Now which one is more likely to blow up someone of a different faith?

I was reading through the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and the U.K. List of Proscribed Groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Ter rorist_Organizations) and noticed that there is a dispreprotionate number of Islamic terrorist groups listed. 27 out of 42 listed by the US State Dept are Islamic terror groups, while 31 out of 49 listed by the UK are Islamic terror groups.

Another source cited by Wikipedia (Islamic Terrorism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Terrorism) states this:

"According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified."So about 63-64% of the terrorists only account for 57% of the fatalities and 61% of the woundings? (according to your sources, I might add)
So the other 37-36% account for the other 43% dead and 39% wounded...

terrorism will always occur whenever people are (or feel) oppressed by their own or foreign governments. oppression leads to extremism and extremism leads to terrorism. it's the law of human nature (however unfortunate that may be). fighting back without addressing the root causes will never abolish terrorism, just make it worse. fighting terrorism leads no inevitable loss of innocent lives, which feeds right into the hands of extremist leaders who then have no difficulty of finding increasing number of recruits.
If that's the root cause of Islamist terrorism, why is their goal the establishment of a Caliphate and the imposition of Islamic Sharia law worldwide? Seems to me you're stating your hypothesis of why terrorism happens without looking at the actual motivations of the Al Qaeda types.

Really? Who's got it worse, some kid starving to death in Zimbabwe or some kid attending religious school in Saudi Arabia? Now which one is more likely to blow up someone of a different faith?
starvation is not necessarily seen by hungry africans as primary result of oppression. Zimbabwe is an oppressive regime, but it is supposedly a democracy and a reasonably recent oppressive regime. give it a few years and - if the political scenario doesn't change - you are likely to start seeing terrorism happening there as well (probably funded by western governments as well). there are people dying of hunger in african democracies (however corrupt they may be). people in sub-saharan africa may believe that their land is much more barren and poor and accept that as a major reason of their demise, while the middle east is extremely rich in oil, the most precious commodity in the world; so their poverty and misery is seen as unjustified.

There is very little correlation, in my opinion, I think it's more "who we want our people to recognise as terrorists, because we're going to send our troops into the Middle East and Eastern Africa in the near future".

starvation is not necessarily seen by hungry africans as primary result of oppression. Zimbabwe is an oppressive regime, but it is supposedly a democracy and a reasonably recent oppressive regime. give it a few years and - if the political scenario doesn't change - you are likely to start seeing terrorism happening there as well (probably funded by western governments as well). there are people dying of hunger in african democracies (however corrupt they may be). people in sub-saharan africa may believe that their land is much more barren and poor and accept that as a major reason of their demise, while the middle east is extremely rich in oil, the most precious commodity in the world; so their poverty and misery is seen as unjustified.
And that would make sense as a justification for terrorism if

1) The poor and hungry were joining terrorist organizations instead of the wealthy and middle class Arabs

2) Al Qaeda's goal wasn't to spread their brand of Islam worldwide but rather to feed the hungry.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/25/iraq.main/index.html

Yes, as we all know, the Iraqis are really upset about the Russian invasion of Iraq...

If that's the root cause of Islamist terrorism, why is their goal the establishment of a Caliphate and the imposition of Islamic Sharia law worldwide? Seems to me you're stating your hypothesis of why terrorism happens without looking at the actual motivations of the Al Qaeda types.
after so many many decades of oppression, the people leading the anti-oppressors will naturally be extremely radical and their ultimate goals may have moved on way beyond fighting oppression.

obviously, al qaeda uses islamic fundamentalism to justify their brutal tactics, since the people they depend on (for recruits) have little more than their faith left. it's a tool, just like christianity was at the time of the inquisitions. organised religion is a tool of power...

after so many many decades of oppression, the people leading the anti-oppressors will naturally be extremely radical and their ultimate goals may have moved on way beyond fighting oppression.

obviously, al qaeda uses islamic fundamentalism to justify their brutal tactics, since the people they depend on (for recruits) have little more than their faith left. it's a tool, just like christianity was at the time of the inquisitions. organised religion is a tool of power...
The 9/11 hijackers were from middle class families. They had nothing but their faith left?

And that would make sense as a justification for terrorism if

1) The poor and hungry were joining terrorist organizations instead of the wealthy and middle class Arabs

2) Al Qaeda's goal wasn't to spread their brand of Islam worldwide but rather to feed the hungry.
you obviously fail to account who trained Bin Laden in the first place; evidence that his original motifs may not have been fighting Western values?

you obviously fail to account who trained Bin Laden in the first place; evidence that his original motifs may not have been fighting Western values?
You obviously haven't read anything he ever wrote, going back to the early 1990s.

The 9/11 hijackers were from middle class families. They had nothing but their faith left?
i'm was talking about recruits like suicide bombers; the pawns. and since when members of the middle or even wealthier classes cannot be against the people in power? your argument is void...

i'm talking about suicide bombers; the pawns. and since when members of the middle or even wealthier classes cannot be against the people in power; your argument is void...
Studies have been done on what type of person becomes a suicide bomber or hijacker.

Some 90 percent are educated, and from the middle to upper class.

You obviously haven't read anything he ever wrote, going back to the early 1990s.
and the CIA did?

terrorism will always occur whenever people are (or feel) oppressed by their own or foreign governments. oppression leads to extremism and extremism leads to terrorism. it's the law of human nature (however unfortunate that may be). fighting back without addressing the root causes will never abolish terrorism, just make it worse. fighting terrorism leads no inevitable loss of innocent lives, which feeds right into the hands of extremist leaders who then have no difficulty of finding increasing number of recruits.


You keep forgetting one single thing: people dont fight oppression - real or imagined - unless they think they can modify it, obtain a better future.
The thing to do is to destroy all their hopes for a better outcome.

To paraphrase Frank Herbert: the succesful despot makes sure his subjects have endless opportunity to fail, and none to succeed.

Studies have been done on what type of person becomes a suicide bomber or hijacker.

Some 90 percent are educated, and from the middle to upper class.
so 90% of the suicide bombers in palestine are from the middle and upper classes??? ahahahahahahahah

please....

and the CIA did?
Yes, they just didn't take it seriously.

Bin Laden has taken great pains to thoroughly delineate his reasons for attacking the West.

The US is not the ultimate goal, although it is a primary goal.

The goal is to eliminate the West. Every man, woman, and child.

And replace the Western nations with the Caliphate, where Muslims will rule the world as Dar al-Islam, and there will be no Westerners, no Western culture, no Western thought, no Western religion.

In a word, genocide. He's been talking about it since before 1993.

You keep forgetting one single thing: people dont fight oppression - real or imagined - unless they think they can modify it, obtain a better future. The thing to do is to destroy all their hopes for a better outcome.
i don't think you can convince palestinians that they cannot have a better future, when the better future is thrown right in their faces by their neighbour Israel.

To paraphrase Frank Herbert: the succesful despot makes sure his subjects have endless opportunity to fail, and none to succeed.
unfortunately for Israel (and the rest of the world) they cannot stop palestinian terrorists always...

i don't think you can convince palestinians that they cannot have a better future, when the better future is thrown right in their faces by their neighbour Israel.

unfortunately for Israel (and the rest of the world) they cannot stop palestinian terrorists always...

Who was the party who decided not to go along with the peace roadmap they signed?

you obviously fail to account who trained Bin Laden in the first place; evidence that his original motifs may not have been fighting Western values?
He was, like many Arabs, motivated by Islamic law that states that any incursion into Muslim lands by non-believer armies should be fought by the entire Umma. That's why he went to Afghanistan. The Soviets were non-muslims invading a piece of Muslim land.

i don't think you can convince palestinians that they cannot have a better future, when the better future is thrown right in their faces by their neighbour Israel.


unfortunately for Israel (and the rest of the world) they cannot stop palestinian terrorists always...


Imminently solvable problems, imho.

Populations can be moved.
All books in the wrong language can be destroyed.

Anyway, getting too tangential here.

Yes, they just didn't take it seriously.

Bin Laden has taken great pains to thoroughly delineate his reasons for attacking the West.

The US is not the ultimate goal, although it is a primary goal.

The goal is to eliminate the West. Every man, woman, and child.

And replace the Western nations with the Caliphate, where Muslims will rule the world as Dar al-Islam, and there will be no Westerners, no Western culture, no Western thought, no Western religion.

In a word, genocide. He's been talking about it since before 1993.
if what you say is true, that the CIA knew about his writings, then past US governments are actually a lot more guilty for 9/11 than i ever thought they were...

how could they have trained and funded a man that had written about eliminating the west? that just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

i'm was talking about recruits like suicide bombers; the pawns. and since when members of the middle or even wealthier classes cannot be against the people in power? your argument is void...
No, it's not. You claim that the terrorists are fighting against oppression. If they were one would expect most of their recruits, pawns as you call them, would come from among the most oppressed people, like the people of Darfur. They don't. They come from middle class Arabs and Central Asians with Wahabi and Deobandi sponsored Islamic educations. Also if they were fighting oppression, why would they embrace an oppressive ideology like the strict and hateful Al Qaeda version of Islam?

if what you say is true, that the CIA knew about his writings, then past US governments are actually a lot more guilty for 9/11 than i ever thought they were...

how could they have trained and funded a man that had written about eliminating the west? that just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...
He was writing that well after.

He was funded and trained indirectly during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. It was after their "victory" over the USSR that he began to write this stuff, long after the CIA had no contact with him.

You need to read up on history, instead of making asinine assertions about what the motivations of Bin Laden are.

Who was the party who decided not to go along with the peace roadmap they signed?
your question is trying to trick me into being apologetic of terrorism; it doesn't work. try again.

There are much more intelligent, deeper analyses you could make as to why people commit crimes than their religion.

For example, in NZ, 15% of our population is Maori, yet 50% of our prison population is Maori. This is alot more of a shocking statistic than the one you showed. Do we simply say that Maoris are a violent people? Linking back to their cannibalism and warrior lifestyle? Or do we look at the areas the majority of Maori live in, where gangs and drugs are rampant and they have a substandard education, unable to look for help as their parents are fighting and/or divorced. This causes them to look towards crime as a way out. It is not simply because they are Maori, it is simply because the majority of Maori are placed in situations that breed criminals.

Now we can use a similar analysis for the Islamist terror. The majority of Muslims and Arabs are born into poverty, while their leaders are enjoying their nations wealth and are having daily meetings with the West. The west then goes and bombs Iraq, twice. They get angry at the west, and as they cannot join their nations army (they are against their nation as well) they attack the west using non-conventional means.

Notice how there is no correlation between that and Islam? Islam is simply an excuse that is being abused by terrorists, to make themselves feel better and to make sure muslims do not hate them too much, as muslims would say "yeah but at least they are fighting for what they believe in and all." It can be compared to Bushs involvement for Iraq fighting for freedom and democracy. The similarity? Their both bullshit.

It is not simply because they are Muslim, do not make me go back to the dark ages and to the Crusades so that you get the point that islam is not about violence, I do not want to go there.

... what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?
Once again: because muslims ( I'm tempted to say "Moslems" just to irritate a certain party, but I won't ) resent what they see as the West's refusal to "allow" them to assume their rightful place as world arbiters of what is and is not permissable. I call it "The Second Coming of The Caliphate."

so 90% of the suicide bombers in palestine are from the middle and upper classes??? ahahahahahahahah

please....
Palestinian terrorists are not Al Qaeda members. They too embrace a genocidal and oppressive view of Islam, but their terrorists are drawn from throughout Palestinan society. They've basically become a terrorist nation.

your question is trying to trick me into being apologetic of terrorism; it doesn't work. try again.
It's not a trick.

The Palestinians reneged on an agreement that they negotiated in "good faith". And chose violence over negotiation. And chose perfidy over committment.

It's not a trick question - they are duplicitous, and there is a solid example there of how duplicitous they are.

if what you say is true, that the CIA knew about his writings, then past US governments are actually a lot more guilty for 9/11 than i ever thought they were...

how could they have trained and funded a man that had written about eliminating the west? that just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...
Please, there was a long tradition of backing scumbags provided those scumbags were anti-soviet. The soviets were seen as a greater threat to America and Europe than a bunch of Koran-thumping extremists. The Soviets had massive armies, nuclear and strategic biological weapons designed specifically to attack Europe and the USA.

No, it's not. You claim that the terrorists are fighting against oppression.
don't put words in my mouth. i've said that oppression leads to extremism which eventually leads to terrorism, if the root cause are not addressed (at which point the original goals of fighting oppression may develop into a much bigger monster).

If they were one would expect most of their recruits, pawns as you call them, would come from among the most oppressed people, like the people of Darfur. They don't. They come from middle class Arabs and Central Asians with Wahabi and Deobandi sponsored Islamic educations.
first: the fact that they have sponsored education doesn't necessarily mean they come from middle classes. second: you cannot convince me that the majority of the palestinian suicide bombers come from the middle classes. in any case, even the middle class in palestine must be equivalent to the poorest of the poor in israel. again, your argument is void.

Also if they were fighting oppression, why would they embrace an oppressive ideology like the strict and hateful Al Qaeda version of Islam?
i've answered this question above.

first: the fact that they have sponsored education doesn't necessarily mean they come from middle classes. second: you cannot convince me that the majority of the palestinian suicide bombers come from the middle classes. in any case, even the middle class in palestine must be equivalent to the poorest of the poor in Israel. again, your argument is void.

We're talking about people with university engineering degrees. Doctors. Lawyers. That sort of education.

You obviously are not well-read on the subject of who becomes a militant Islamic terrorist nowadays.

We're talking about people with university engineering degrees. Doctors. Lawyers. That sort of education.

You obviously are not well-read on the subject of who becomes a militant Islamic terrorist nowadays.
Most Japanese Kamikaze pilots were twenty-something history students at university.

Being educated doesn't stop you being pissed off enough to blow yourself and other people up.

don't put words in my mouth. i've said that oppression leads to extremism which eventually leads to terrorism, if the root cause are not addressed (at which point the original goals of fighting oppression may develop into a much bigger monster). I've said that Al Qaeda's recruits don't come from the ranks of the oppressed, so one can't use oppression as the root cause of their terrorism. The root cause of Al Qaeda's terrorism is religious extremism.


first: the fact that they have sponsored education doesn't necessarily mean they come from middle classes. second: you cannot convince me that the majority of the palestinian suicide bombers come from the middle classes. in any case, even the middle class in palestine must be equivalent to the poorest of the poor in israel. again, your argument is void. I wasn't talking about Palestinians, I've been focusing on Al Qaeda in this conversation. Your rebuttal is void.


i've answered this question above. No, you really haven't. You've stated that fighting oppression somehow magically turns into other motives. That's got about as much power to explain anything as creationism does.

Most Japanese Kamikaze pilots were twenty-something history students at university.

Being educated doesn't stop you being pissed off enough to blow yourself and other people up.
My point exactly.

Assis seems to think that only poor uneducated people would do terrorism.

It's not a trick.

The Palestinians reneged on an agreement that they negotiated in "good faith". And chose violence over negotiation. And chose perfidy over committment.

It's not a trick question - they are duplicitous, and there is a solid example there of how duplicitous they are.
israel is dealing with the terrorists they (and the rest of the world) have helped create through their own actions (or lack of). one side fed into the other. when things become so polarised, there is very little hope they can come to an agreement. the world turned a blind eye for decades and allowed the situation and feelings to escalate to an extent whereby both sides negotiating are hardly peace-loving sides.

and please don't tell me that either sharon or arafat were peace-loving men; their past history speaks for itself. what do you expect when you have two archenemies warmongers negotiating? peace?! one side backing off and saying "i'm weak; you win"?! got to be very naive if you do...

for years, i never understood why the the UN didn't deploy a peace-keeping force to divide the two people. the answer? it wasn't in someone's interest of course (either/both sides?). draw your own conclusions out of that.

We're talking about people with university engineering degrees. Doctors. Lawyers. That sort of education.

You obviously are not well-read on the subject of who becomes a militant Islamic terrorist nowadays.
even if that is true (and i doubt they amount to anywhere near to 90%), exactly where does a palestinian graduate in engineering or law is expected to find a job in palestine is beyond me... of course you prefer to ignore that.

even if that is true (and i doubt they amount to anywhere near to 90%), exactly where does a palestinian graduate in engineering or law is expected to find a job in palestine is beyond me... of course you prefer to ignore that.

It is quite true, and multiple studies confirm it.

It's not Israel's fault if a man lives in a country so corrupt that its leader owns billion dollar villas in Italy while his people are poor.

My point exactly.

Assis seems to think that only poor uneducated people would do terrorism.
once again, you are putting words in my mouth; the favourite tactic of those who are running out of arguments.

where exactly did i say "only poor uneducated people would do terrorism."

quote me or shut your slandering mouth.

once again, you are putting words in my mouth; the favourite tactic of those who are running out of arguments.

where exactly did i say "only poor uneducated people would do terrorism."

quote me or shut your slandering mouth.

You said quite clearly that educated people would not commit terrorism.

I've said that Al Qaeda's recruits don't come from the ranks of the oppressed, so one can't use oppression as the root cause of their terrorism. The root cause of Al Qaeda's terrorism is religious extremism.
so the only oppressed people are the poor? can't the rich feel against corrupt dictators? listen to yourself...
I wasn't talking about Palestinians, I've been focusing on Al Qaeda in this conversation. Your rebuttal is void. No, you really haven't. You've stated that fighting oppression somehow magically turns into other motives.
terrorists are terrorists, whether they come from poor, middle or wealthier classes... wherever. and refrain to use words as "magic" or "conspiracy theories" if you don't want to be exposed to ridicule.
That's got about as much power to explain anything as creationism does.
ahhh now you are slandering me comparing me to (implying i am?) a creationist... your argument skills are the kind of propaganda al qaeda uses against the west. they are reaching pathetic levels. i'm an agnostic, how could i be a creationist? try again.

You said quite clearly that educated people would not commit terrorism.
quote me or shut your slandering mouth.

so the only oppressed people are the poor? can't the rich feel against corrupt dictators? listen to yourself... Osama's beef with the Saudis isn't that they're oppressive to the people, but that they're not Islamic enough (some drink, some are rumored to be gay, some use drugs, et cetera) and that they allowed a non-muslim army into the land of the two holy cities (mecca and medina). You ask me to listen to myself. Fine, in return why don't you read a few books about the roots of modern Islamist terrorism.

terrorists are terrorists, whether they come from poor, middle or wealthier classes... wherever. and refrain to use words as "magic" or "conspiracy theories" if you don't want to be exposed to ridicule. Terrorists are terrorists? So they don't have different motivations? Different strategies? You can't believe that because taken literally you would be saying that an IRA terrorist is indistinguishable from an Al Qaeda terrorist.

ahhh now you are slandering me comparing me to (implying i am?) a creationist... your argument skills are the kind of propaganda al qaeda uses against the west. they are reaching pathetic levels. i'm an agnostic, how could i be a creationist? try again. Ah, now you're purposely missing my point to try to deflect my argument. I didn't call you a creationist, I compared the explanatory power of your argument to the explanatory power of creationist arguments. Seriously, I can't believe you're dumb enough to think I called you a creationist. So you must be dishonest enough to feign insult in order to deflect criticism.

Osama's beef with the Saudis isn't that they're oppressive to the people, but that they're not Islamic enough (some drink, some are rumored to be gay, some use drugs, et cetera) and that they allowed a non-muslim army into the land of the two holy cities (mecca and medina). You ask me to listen to myself. Fine, in return why don't you read a few books about the roots of modern Islamist terrorism.
name me an oppressor who doesn't have two measures of values for themselves and their people. isn't that "oppression"? can Osama come out in the open and criticise their hypocrisy? no. why? because the regime in saudi arabia is an oppressive regime. does that make Osama's values better? of course it doesn't. maybe you should think more often about general "human nature" and the roots of all terrorism, regardless of political or religious affiliation, instead of simply filling your brain with other people's opinions (i.e. books) on specific cases. most of them are different labels for the same crap.
Terrorists are terrorists? So they don't have different motivations? Different strategies? You can't believe that because taken literally you would be saying that an IRA terrorist is indistinguishable from an Al Qaeda terrorist.
ahh here your bigotry and double standards become exposed. are you implying that killing innocent civilians were somewhat less evil or more justified, when the perpetrators were the IRA (maybe because they were white and/or non-muslim)?... or that the strategies/motivations employed to kill innocent lives can be better or worse? if that is the case, i rest my case and "yes", for me they (whoever murders innocents) are as bad as eachother.
Ah, now you're purposely missing my point to try to deflect my argument.
i don't need to, anyone reasonable realises that there is no magic in the escalation of violence and eroding of original motivations, when there is no long-lasting peace to break in between the cycles of violence. the middle east has been ravaged by wars for decades, a lot of them due to the cold war (US vs. USSR). that is one of the main roots of Islamic fundamentalism, but it's been conveniently forgotten by the modern world. only a blind or a subsersive person can use the argument that you used, that "fighting oppression somehow magically turns into other motives".
I didn't call you a creationist, I compared the explanatory power of your argument to the explanatory power of creationist arguments.
which is such a better rational and non-slandering argument, isn't it? *sigh* it kind of sounded like you were shooting in the dark, given my quote of Jesus in the signature... shame (for you) i'm not religious, despite loving the words of Jesus...
Seriously, I can't believe you're dumb enough to think I called you a creationist.
you don't need to call me one... comparing me to one is equivalent to calling me one; it's subversive rethoric.
So you must be dishonest enough to feign insult in order to deflect criticism.
dishonest, dumb, creationism, magically, what can i say... you keep associating me with slandering words. so if i compare your argument skills to those of a dumb-ass (which i haven't and - let's be clear - i'm not doing now) i'm not insulting you?

call me dishonest...

you cannot convince me that the majority of the palestinian suicide bombers come from the middle classes. in any case, even the middle class in palestine must be equivalent to the poorest of the poor in israel. again, your argument is void.

Here's where you said you don't believe they are from the middle and upper classes.

If this was the 60s there's be a disporportionate listing of Marxist/Maoist groups instead. It's all about "What Scares Americans Today?"


I think it's reallly all about WHO IS KILLING AMERICANS TODAY. Give me a break...stop blaming the West for Muslim murder and Islamo-fascism.

Here's where you said you don't believe they are from the middle and upper classes.
so now you have twisting your own arguments?

i said:
"you cannot convince me that the majority of the palestinian suicide bombers come from the middle classes.

plus:

"in any case, even the middle class in palestine must be equivalent to the poorest of the poor in israel.

and that still doesn't say:
"you said quite clearly that educated people would not commit terrorism."
where's the reference to education in my words? and how is this last sentence of yours equal to the top one?

pathetic attempt. try again...

where's the reference to education in my words? and how is this last sentence of yours equal to the top one?


Try denying this one then:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/schuster.column/index.html

Proof that we're correct about their backgrounds, and you are completely wrong.

So - what causes the correlation between Islam and terror today?

Boredom. Pure and simple.

I mean ... yeesh ... if I couldn't see a boob now and then or at least talk to a woman in a restaurant without fear of the morality police, I'd want to blow myself up too.

My message to them: Blow up the people who won't let you watch porn.

Boredom. Pure and simple.

I mean ... yeesh ... if I couldn't see a boob now and then or at least talk to a woman in a restaurant without fear of the morality police, I'd want to blow myself up too.

My message to them: Blow up the people who won't let you watch porn.
If Christian fundamentalism takes off the way that Islamic fundamentalism has, you'll get your chance.

In the 1970s the terrorist attacks (far more than today) were coming from the German Red Army (Baader-Meinhof Gang), the Italian Red Brigades, the Basque ETA, Greece's November 17, France's National Front for the Liberation of Corsica (NFLN), and the Irish Republican Army.


ETA killed 800 people from 1968 to 2003
The IRA killed 1,775 people over a 27-year period
NFLN mounted hundreds of bomb attacks and occasional assassination attempts since the mid-1970s
German Red Army kidnapped business leaders, gunned down politicians, prosecutors and police officers, bombed corporation headquarters and U.S. military bases, and hijacked an airliner
November 17 claimed responsibility for more than 20 killings from 1975 to 2002. Among those it assassinated were a CIA station chief, a U.S. Navy captain, defense attaches at the British and American embassies, and a Turkish diplomat.
Red Brigades killed hundreds of government officials, judges and lawyers, and police officers. In 1978, Red Brigades members kidnapped and murdered former Prime Minister Aldo Moro.


Is there a correlation between European secularism and terror?

name me an oppressor who doesn't have two measures of values for themselves and their people. isn't that "oppression"? can Osama come out in the open and criticise their hypocrisy? no. why? because the regime in saudi arabia is an oppressive regime. does that make Osama's values better? of course it doesn't. maybe you should think more often about general "human nature" and the roots of all terrorism, regardless of political or religious affiliation, instead of simply filling your brain with other people's opinions (i.e. books) on specific cases. most of them are different labels for the same crap.

ahh here your bigotry and double standards become exposed. are you implying that killing innocent civilians were somewhat less evil or more justified, when the perpetrators were the IRA (maybe because they were white and/or non-muslim)?... or that the strategies/motivations employed to kill innocent lives can be better or worse? if that is the case, i rest my case and "yes", for me they (whoever murders innocents) are as bad as eachother.
Nope, I didn't say their terrorism was any less immoral than Al Qaeda's. You've misunderstood. I was pointing out that different terrorist organizations have different goals and use different tactics to recruit members and accomplish their goals. I was simply stating that all terrorists aren't identical, as you seemed to imply.
i don't need to, anyone reasonable realises that there is no magic in the escalation of violence and eroding of original motivations, when there is no long-lasting peace to break in between the cycles of violence. the middle east has been ravaged by wars for decades, a lot of them due to the cold war (US vs. USSR). that is one of the main roots of Islamic fundamentalism, but it's been conveniently forgotten by the modern world. only a blind or a subsersive person can use the argument that you used, that "fighting oppression somehow magically turns into other motives". Have you read the writings of people like Hassan Al Banna? Have you read any of the writings of Sayyid Qutb? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796 You're arguing a subject you've demonstrated you know absolutely nothing about.

which is such a better rational and non-slandering argument, isn't it? *sigh* it kind of sounded like you were shooting in the dark, given my quote of Jesus in the signature... shame (for you) i'm not religious, despite loving the words of Jesus...

you don't need to call me one... comparing me to one is equivalent to calling me one; it's subversive rethoric.

dishonest, dumb, creationism, magically, what can i say... you keep associating me with slandering words. so if i compare your argument skills to those of a dumb-ass (which i haven't and - let's be clear - i'm not doing now) i'm not insulting you?

call me dishonest...

If Christian fundamentalism takes off the way that Islamic fundamentalism has, you'll get your chance.

Neat!

Try denying this one then:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/schuster.column/index.html

Proof that we're correct about their backgrounds, and you are completely wrong.
first, let's be clear that Al Qaeda does not represent the totality of islamic fundamentalists.
second, try this one:
"Marc Sageman, a newly appointed FPRI Senior Fellow, was a CIA case officer in Afghanistan between 1987–89 and is now a forensic psychiatrist."
source (http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20041101.middleeast.sageman.understandingterrornetworks.html)

want to provide a less biased opinion? i wander if he also got the chance to interview the terrorists that blew themselves up, instead of just those that were caught (quite possibly the higher rank members directing the operations)? of course, that throws a spanner in the statistics, doesn't it?

it's like saying that the US army is mainly composed of the middle and upper-class, because you can't count the privates (in Al Qaeda's case they are mostly dead or in the making)...

If Christian fundamentalism takes off the way that Islamic fundamentalism has, you'll get your chance.
i would argue that it already is taking off, but this is not the time or place to do it... let's stick to topic...

Why don't you provide some sources to back up your assertions? Or was I correct in comparing you to a creationist in that you ignore contrary evidence and base your argument only on speculation that supports your preexisting opinions on the subject?

Nope, I didn't say their terrorism was any less immoral than Al Qaeda's. You've misunderstood. I was pointing out that different terrorist organizations have different goals and use different tactics to recruit members and accomplish their goals. I was simply stating that all terrorists aren't identical, as you seemed to imply.
seemed to imply? i stated it clearly. all terrorists that murder innocent lives are identical; just not in the eyes of a bigot.

Have you read the writings of people like Hassan Al Banna? Have you read any of the writings of Sayyid Qutb? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796 You're arguing a subject you've demonstrated you know absolutely nothing about.
i don't need to read hate words to learn how the world works, thank you. i've got 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 2 hands and 1 brain to learn and think for myself, something you don't seem able to do, since you keep bringing up specialised books as if reading them made you intellectually superior or more unbiasedly informed by default. guess what; it doesn't.

Why don't you provide some sources to back up your assertions? Or was I correct in comparing you to a creationist in that you ignore contrary evidence and base your argument only on speculation that supports your preexisting opinions on the subject?
here you go again. as i said, this is not the time or place. the thread is about islam, not christian fundamentalism. i'm free to stick to the topic. try again.

i don't need to read hate words to learn how the world works, thank you. i've got 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 2 hands and 1 brain to learn and think for myself, something you don't seem able to do, since you keep bringing up specialised books as if reading them made you intellectually superior or more unbiasedly informed by default. guess what; it doesn't.

Actually, if you don't read the writings of the militant Islamists, you have no idea why they're doing what they're doing. And it makes you intellectually inferior, and completely uninformed if you haven't read them.

seemed to imply? i stated it clearly. all terrorists that murder innocent lives are identical; just not in the eyes of a bigot.


i don't need to read hate words to learn how the world works, thank you. i've got 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 2 hands and 1 brain to learn and think for myself, something you don't seem able to do, since you keep bringing up specialised books as if reading them made you intellectually superior or more unbiasedly informed by default. guess what; it doesn't.
In other words you're willfully ignorant and anyone who doesn't join you in your ignorance is a bigot. I'm done with you. Nothing productive can come of this.