Are most terrorists, Muslim? According to official FBI numbers: Not even close.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
lol. Lets see going by FBIs definition
The Gujurat massacre.
Fallujah
Guantanamo
Abu Garib
Gaza strip into a prison strip
Palestine.
Bosnia
Chechnya invasion.

There were all non-Muslim initiated terrorist acts. Shall I continue?

Why don't you continue with the weekly bombings in Iraq? Or would that skew you numbers too badly?


There's just a small sample. This whole thread is retarded, and the title is not only misleading, but a lie.

Are most terrorists, Muslim? According to official FBI numbers: Not even close.

Except you are only pulling statistics from attacks on US Soil. Either change the thread title, or use world statistics.
 

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
Why don't you continue with the weekly bombings in Iraq? Or would that skew you numbers too badly?
*snip*

There's just a small sample. This whole thread is retarded, and the title is not only misleading, but a lie.


Are most terrorists, Muslim? According to official FBI numbers: Not even close.

Except you are only pulling statistics from attacks on US Soil. Either change the thread title, or use world statistics.

The onset of violence in Iraq was brought about by our invading the country. So it is pointless to bring that up.

If you want me to complete the list, a la Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2007
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2006"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2006[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2004

and so on.

As per that list, a large number of such acts were in Iraq. Which I will exclude, like i said above, that country had insignificant terrorist acts before we invaded.

The other region is Pakistan. Which also saw a massive upsurge because of our forces in the neighboring country, pushing the Taliban into Pakistan.

Violence begets violence.

The remaining includes countries from all over the world, India, Sril Lanka, Chechnya, Greece, Phillipines, Ukraine, ,Spain, Israel and so on.

Feel free to go through the list.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
The onset of violence in Iraq was brought about by our invading the country. So it is pointless to bring that up.

It's hardly "pointless". We invaded Iraq, so the Muslims blowing up other Muslims with car bombs every other day doesn't count? LOL

Feel free to go through the list.

I have, and it doesn't change the fact that the thread title is misleading at best, at worst an outright lie.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Hmm. Muslims trying to convince us that Muslims don't really behave all that badly.
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
Why don't you continue with the weekly bombings in Iraq? Or would that skew you numbers too badly?


There's just a small sample. This whole thread is retarded, and the title is not only misleading, but a lie.

Are most terrorists, Muslim? According to official FBI numbers: Not even close.

Except you are only pulling statistics from attacks on US Soil. Either change the thread title, or use world statistics.

Oh, are we doing that now?

Well, I can counter this with another example of "attacking civilians to induce terror and force a political decision":

Both A-bombs.
Carpet bombing of Urban Tokyo (250,000 civilians killed)

It will be interesting to see people here start justifying terrorism... (lay them on me, "It was for a good cause!", "It was war!"...etc)
 
Last edited:

routan

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
837
0
0
It's hardly "pointless". We invaded Iraq, so the Muslims blowing up other Muslims with car bombs every other day doesn't count? LOL

I have, and it doesn't change the fact that the thread title is misleading at best, at worst an outright lie.

xj0hnx, its a shame that I have to explain this to you. an educated adult would not find a cause and effect situation difficult.

We invaded Iraq, which in itself would be considered a massive terrorist attack, one which directly effected tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention completely decimating the infrastructure of the entire nation.

Muslims are not car bombing Muslims as you suggest. A terrorist is bombing a target to further his/her political or social goal. This is an indirect result of our invasion, the political void created, the fissures between the society brought to the forefront and so on. Ethnic differences were exploited: Kurds vs. Arabs, sectarian differences were exploited: Shiite vs Muslims, and religious differences were brought to the limelights: Muslims vs non-Muslims.

Divide and conquer is not a new concept. Please educate yourself further.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Oh, are we doing that now?

Well, I can counter this with another example of "attacking civilians to induce terror and force a political decision":

Both A-bombs.
Carpet bombing of Urban Tokyo (250,000 civilians killed)

It will be nice to see people here start justifying terrorism...


both A bombs were in a war. world war 2.

here is to you being a moron again
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Muslims are not car bombing Muslims as you suggest. A terrorist is bombing a target to further his/her political or social goal.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Right, and those terrorist are Muslims. The war isn't making them blow up their own civilians in markets.

TareX said:
Oh, are we doing that now?

Well, I can counter this with another example of "attacking civilians to induce terror and force a political decision":

Both A-bombs.
Carpet bombing of Urban Tokyo (250,000 civilians killed)

It will be nice to see people here start justifying terrorism...

Our country was at war with Japan, calling that a "terrorist" act is a stretch, if you want to play the stretch believability game, one could say that the bombings in fact saved many more lives than they took since it forced the surrender of the Japanese and ended the war.

Stop diverting attention from the misleading title, and out right lie.
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
both A bombs were in a war. world war 2.

here is to you being a moron again

Oh, ok. I get it. So "mass-attacking civilians in order to influence a political decision (surrender)" is JUSTIFIED in war?

Is that what you're saying?

So, if Iraqi/Afghanistani groups detonate a bomb in a civilian US target -that wouldn't be terrorism because, there's "a war going on"?

Ok, keep going.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Unless you want the same words in both definitions, the message conveyed is obviously the same.

No, they are obviously NOT the same definitions, or things like robberies or simple vandalism would not be included. Obviously the list is not limited to acts that the general public would consider "terrorism". The FBI didn't intend it's list to be used in that sense either, it's a stupid author/article that tries to use statistics to reach a completely wrong and stupid conclusion.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Oh, ok. I get it. So "mass-attacking civilians in order to influence a political decision (surrender)" is JUSTIFIED in war?

Are you being willfully ignorant, or do you really not understand the difference between terrorism and war?

So, if Iraqi/Afghanistani groups detonate a bomb in a civilian US target -that wouldn't be terrorism because, there's "a war going on"?

Ok, keep going.

Which Iraqi/Afghanistan groups are we at war with?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Oh, ok. I get it. So "mass-attacking civilians in order to influence a political decision (surrender)" is JUSTIFIED in war?

Is that what you're saying?

So, if Iraqi/Afghanistani groups detonate a bomb in a civilian US target -that wouldn't be terrorism because, there's "a war going on"?

Ok, keep going.



To address your A-Bomb comment: Both sides had been doing that for years by the time the bombs were dropped. Please refer to the London Blitz, the firebombings of Dresden and other major cities, ad nauseam...

Secondly - Usage of these events is no less false than your attempting to cover hijackings, bombings, and other means of mass killings by Wahhabi terrorists with various acts of property destruction by Eco~terrorists which resulted in no injuries or deaths.
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
do you really not understand the difference between terrorism and war?

My aforementioned question still goes unanswered:

If Iraqi/Afghanistani groups detonate a bomb in a civilian US target -that wouldn't be terrorism because, there's "a war going on"?
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
To address your A-Bomb comment: Both sides had been doing that for years by the time the bombs were dropped. Please refer to the London Blitz, the firebombings of Dresden and other major cities, ad nauseam...

Secondly - Usage of these events is no less false than your attempting to cover hijackings, bombings, and other means of mass killings by Wahhabi terrorists with various acts of property destruction by Eco~terrorists which resulted in no injuries or deaths.

Firstly - So, what you're saying is that "intentionally attacking civilian targets in order to influence a political decision" is totally acceptable and not terrorism, as long as -in your own words, "it has been happening for years by the time" of the attack? (Even though I can hardly think of any attacks more devastating or comparable in devastation to the A-bombs and the urban bombing of Tokyo.)

Secondly - Yep, the FBI is conspiring to dilute the Wahhabi attacks. You got them, champ.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I'm not sure that semantic debates over the technical definition of "terrorism" are terribly useful. If it wasn't such an emotionally loaded word, I suppose we wouldn't even bother debating it.

To the OP, this is a bad thread fail. Do you seriously think the number of "terrorist" acts is more important than the actual number of people killed? What matters most, how we technically define a word, or the number of actual human lives lost? You were bound to lose that argument and accordingly, I can't understand why you would even attempt such a gambit.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Firstly - So, what you're saying is that "intentionally attacking civilian targets in order to influence a political decision" is totally acceptable and not terrorism, as long as -in your own words, "it has been happening for years by the time" of the attack? (Even though I can hardly think of any attacks more devastating or comparable in devastation to the A-bombs and the urban bombing of Tokyo.)

Secondly - Yep, the FBI is conspiring to dilute the Wahhabi attacks. You got them, champ.



Then you're ignorant: The firebombings of Dresden and other European cities were every bit as devastating as what we did to Japan.


Secondly: YOU are the one who presented the FBI data in an attempt here to prove that extremist Wahabbis are not the murdering bastards they really are. Your attempts deflection since are merely evidence of your failure of the ridiculousness of your 'theory'.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I'm not sure that semantic debates over the technical definition of "terrorism" are terribly useful. If it wasn't such an emotionally loaded word, I suppose we wouldn't even bother debating it.

To the OP, this is a bad thread fail. Do you seriously think the number of "terrorist" acts is more important than the actual number of people killed? What matters most, how we technically define a word, or the number of actual human lives lost? You were bound to lose that argument and accordingly, I can't understand why you would even attempt such a gambit.

Agreed. Fail thread is fail.
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
Then you're ignorant: The firebombings of Dresden and other European cities were every bit as devastating as what we did to Japan.

Looked it up. Not even comparable.

Secondly: YOU are the one who presented the FBI data in an attempt here to prove that extremist Wahabbis are not the murdering bastards they really are. Your attempts deflection since are merely evidence of your failure of the ridiculousness of your 'theory'.

BINGO. EXACTLY. Yes, I was trying to prove that extremist Wahabbis are not murdering bastards. It's funny I thought you spoke English as a first language.

Might I recommend re-checking this thread after going through this crash-course: http://www.learnenglish-a-z.com/learn-to-read-english.html
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
My aforementioned question still goes unanswered:

If Iraqi/Afghanistani groups detonate a bomb in a civilian US target -that wouldn't be terrorism because, there's "a war going on"?

So are you conceding that war and terrorism are not the same thing, and that you trying to compare the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were not terrorist acts?

Yes, it would be a terrorist act because we are not at war with Iraq, or Afghanistan. Random groups are not the same as countries. We were at war WITH Japan, the country of. If we were at war with the country of Iraq, or Afghanistan than no, it wouldn't be a terrorist attack.

You need to change your misleading title, that is unless you goal was to be dishonest.
 

TareX

Member
Jan 10, 2011
177
0
0
So are you conceding that war and terrorism are not the same thing, and that you trying to compare the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were not terrorist acts?

Yes, it would be a terrorist act because we are not at war with Iraq, or Afghanistan. Random groups are not the same as countries. We were at war WITH Japan, the country of. If we were at war with the country of Iraq, or Afghanistan than no, it wouldn't be a terrorist attack.

You need to change your misleading title, that is unless you goal was to be dishonest.

Hold on just a second. So -while you were in war with the Iraqi government in 2005, if Saddam had detonated a bomb in NYC -killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and promised more to come unless the US backs of.... that would not have been "an act of terror"?

NB - Nothing misleading about the title. If you attack a civilian entity to influence a political decision, you're a terrorist. If you disagree with the FBI's definition, well, I can't really help you with that.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Hold on just a second. So -while you were in war with the Iraqi government in 2005, if Saddam had detonated a bomb in NYC -killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and promised more to come unless the US backs of.... that would not have been "an act of terror"?

Nope.

NB - Nothing misleading about the title.
The title is COMPLETELY misleading. You did not provide any statistic for outside of the US. The correct title would have been:

Are most domestic terrorist Muslims? According to the FBI numbers: Not even close.

Your implication that most terrorist are not Muslim because "terrorist" acts on American soil are mostly not is a complete, and utter lie.