Islamophobia the socially acceptable hatred?

baron said:
in one single country (Pakistan), in the past ten years alone, 25,000 Islamic terrorists have been killed by armed forces.
Click to expand...

That's not the number of terrorists killed in Pakistan in the last decade. That's the number of civilians killed by terrorists in Pakistan in the last decade.

See here.
 
baron said:
You seem to not understand the difference between Islam and Muslims. To support your argument that Islam and terrorism are not linked you would need to demonstrate that no act of terrorism has ever been carried out in the name of Islam. This is demonstrable nonsense and proven as such on a day-to-day basis. You don't even need to speculate on the link because in many cases it's given to you by the perpetrators of the act. If a fatwa is drawn up against a person for insulting the prophet and that person is then beheaded in the street by a Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar" then I challenge you to disprove the link between Islam and the ensuing murder. Arguments of wider Muslim support and misinterpretation of scripture can all be had but they are necessarily subsequent to acceptance of the blatantly obvious, that Islam and terrorism are linked. This holds true for all religions.
Click to expand...


Problem with your reasoning is that it is just saying "humans are linked to terrorism" which is true but of very little utility. When most folks claim that Islam and terrorism are linked they are implying that there is something specific to Islam which creates that link.
 
ANTPogo said:
That's not the number of terrorists killed in Pakistan in the last decade. That's the number of civilians killed by terrorists in Pakistan in the last decade.

See here.
Click to expand...

Not according to this site -

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm

It gives the figures as 24257 terrorists, 13614 civilians and 4525 forces. But if the site you quoted is correct then I'd suggest your figures indicate a higher number of actual terrorists than mine.
 
baron said:
So you agree there's a link? If there is no link then your question doesn't make sense.

And I think you need to define what you mean by "a few nuts". I have no figures for the number of Islamic terrorists worldwide but consider this; in one single country (Pakistan), in the past ten years alone, 25,000 Islamic terrorists have been killed by armed forces. That's just killed, not in existence, so we can assume the latter figure is orders of magnitudes higher. Extrapolating that figure across Afghanistan and Africa and other Islamic terrorism hotbeds and I get to thinking your definition of 'a few' does not coincide with mine.

But as I said this is not relevant to my argument, which is that a clear link exists.



If this is true then there is a link between the environmental movement and violence. The analogy to Islam tends to stop there, however, as to my knowledge there is no doctrine of environmentalism that can be assessed for culpability.



Nothing of relevance.
Click to expand...

so why do you accept a link between Islam and terrorism, but other links to terrorism you ignore, why?

here in europe far more terrorist atacks are done by non muslims than by muslims.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf
 
how can you conclude that 25k terrorists have been killed by armed forces when the statistics shown say "Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2012"

also how do they accuratly differentiate between civilian and terrorists when its compiled from news articles?
a strange homepage.
 
baron said:
But if the site you quoted is correct then I'd suggest your figures indicate a higher number of actual terrorists than mine.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. There's no relationship between the number of terrorists killed and the number of people killed by terrorists, such that knowing one number would let you calculate the other.
 
Darat said:
Problem with your reasoning is that it is just saying "humans are linked to terrorism" which is true but of very little utility. When most folks claim that Islam and terrorism are linked they are implying that there is something specific to Islam which creates that link.
Click to expand...

I'm doing more than implying it, I'm asserting it as fact. You might argue about the validity of the flavours of Islam that call for terrorism and you might debate the extent to which they are observed in the Muslim world, but the link is self-evidently present.

DC said:
so why do you accept a link between Islam and terrorism, but other links to terrorism you ignore, why?
Click to expand...

Because the topic of this thread is Islam. Should I arrive at a thread concerning environmental terrorism or Christian atrocities then I wager I'll address those issues too, assuming I'm sufficiently interested to participate.

As an aside, when you yourself are on such a thread do you protest that nobody is mentioning Islamic terrorism or is your apologist protestation a one-way street?

DC said:
how can you conclude that 25k terrorists have been killed by armed forces when the statistics shown say "Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2012"
Click to expand...

I don't care who they were killed by, it makes no difference to my point.

DC said:
also how do they accuratly differentiate between civilian and terrorists when its compiled from news articles?
Click to expand...

If that's the case I imagine that the information was in the news articles. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, however. If it turned out that the figures are actually not 25,000 terrorists and 13,000 civilians killed, but 15,000 terrorists and 23,000 civilians, is this somehow helping your point that it's only a 'few nuts' who are responsible?

ANTPogo said:
No, they don't. There's no relationship between the number of terrorists killed and the number of people killed by terrorists, such that knowing one number would let you calculate the other.
Click to expand...

In that case we'll just go with my figures until other figures emerge, at which point we can assess which ones are more evidential.
 
baron said:
I'm doing more than implying it, I'm asserting it as fact. You might argue about the validity of the flavours of Islam that call for terrorism and you might debate the extent to which they are observed in the Muslim world, but the link is self-evidently present.



Because the topic of this thread is Islam. Should I arrive at a thread concerning environmental terrorism or Christian atrocities then I wager I'll address those issues too, assuming I'm sufficiently interested to participate.

As an aside, when you yourself are on such a thread do you protest that nobody is mentioning Islamic terrorism or is your apologist protestation a one-way street?



I don't care who they were killed by, it makes no difference to my point.



If that's the case I imagine that the information was in the news articles. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, however. If it turned out that the figures are actually not 25,000 terrorists and 13,000 civilians killed, but 15,000 terrorists and 23,000 civilians, is this somehow helping your point that it's only a 'few nuts' who are responsible?



In that case we'll just go with my figures until other figures emerge, at which point we can assess which ones are more evidential.
Click to expand...

sounds like you accidnetly landed in the wrong thread, the topic here is Islamophobia.

also it seem you do not read your sources carefully, there is no dispute that their numbers are from news articles.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
sounds like you accidnetly landed in the wrong thread, the topic here is Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

Take the trouble to follow the thread and you will find my points are on topic.

DC said:
also it seem you do not read your sources carefully, there is no dispute that their numbers are from news articles.
Click to expand...

I don't care in the slightest as it's not relevant to my point.

You appear to be very confused and your posts are incoherent.
 
baron said:
Interesting that you defend a man who declared that atheists are cattle and of "no intelligence" and that non-Muslims are immoral and "live their lives like animals".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4hpfqFt-0Q
Click to expand...

oh well, the Koran is even harder on us atheists, we are actually lower than animals.

all religions believe that those not part of their cult are living the wrong way. So what? i think the religious are living their live in the wrong way.
 
baron said:
Take the trouble to follow the thread and you will find my points are on topic.



I don't care in the slightest as it's not relevant to my point.

You appear to be very confused and your posts are incoherent.
Click to expand...

yes i agree your posts are on topic, a the topic is Islamaphobia. no preoblem there.

so you don't really care for the accuracy of the numbers you base your believes on?
 
Last edited:
DC said:
so you don't really care for the accuracy of the numbers you base your believes on?
Click to expand...

We can allow a vast margin of error before the figures fail to support my point that Islamic terrorism is not the product of "a few nutjobs", so in this instance a high level of accuracy is not needed. Then again it's always worth posting correct data if it's available so if you have evidence regarding the inaccuracy of those figures please post it.
 
Baron you are missing the point and helping makie th epoint that blindly hating all of a group of people fo rhte actions of one person is irrational.

ANd do not say I am defending anyone I am jsut pointing to the fact that there is an undecurrent of hating a whole group of people for the views and actions of a tiny minority, which appears to be acceptable.

Why finger just the one group if you are to be consistant you should examine all religious groups and as has been pointed out time and again you will find in all of them minorities that are dangerous and extreme, but somehow that does not count somehow it is only Isalm that you seem to have a prticulr vitriol for why is that?

Why hate an entire singel religion for extreme acts carried out in its name but not all the others too?
 
baron said:
We can allow a vast margin of error before the figures fail to support my point that Islamic terrorism is not the product of "a few nutjobs", so in this instance a high level of accuracy is not needed. Then again it's always worth posting correct data if it's available so if you have evidence regarding the inaccuracy of those figures please post it.
Click to expand...

compared to the over a billion moslems, 25k is indeed only a few.
 
baron said:
We can allow a vast margin of error before the figures fail to support my point that Islamic terrorism is not the product of "a few nutjobs",
Click to expand...

There are 177 million people in Pakistan. So even if your numbers are correct, that's still only 0.01% of the population.

I'm pretty sure one hundredth of one percent counts as "a few".
 
baron said:
I'm doing more than implying it, I'm asserting it as fact. You might argue about the validity of the flavours of Islam that call for terrorism and you might debate the extent to which they are observed in the Muslim world, but the link is self-evidently present.


...snip....
Click to expand...

But it doesn't follow from the reasoning you gave above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom