Journalist Walks in Paris Dressed as a Religious Jew

[Simplelogic]

No, they don't. You may get a lot of them from areas of the world that are hardly any better off than what Europe was during the Medieval era (the Islamic empire of the time actually flourished and made many important scientific and medical discoveries), but this does not mean the extremists from other religions are keeping quiet.


Yeah, because what are some of the most backwards, ruthless, and oppressive states on the planet today speak for all Muslims around the globe.
Why do you not see similar trends coming from Muslims who are culturally Western? What is it that accounts for this discrepancy?

You are not very informed on the Middle East. Egypt is a very modernized country and still 86% believe in this crazy sh*t!!!

What is the reason for the western discrepancy? I'm very glad you asked!

Muslim populations operate differently in non-Muslim nations depending on the percentage of how many Muslims are living in that nation. Muslims in England were very quiet for many years. But recently Muslims have been rising up in England and demanding Sharia law in their neighbor hoods. They have also been actively declaring that England will be an "Islamic State". And they are probably right. The Muslim birth rate in europe is about 7-9 children per family. Compare this to the native Europeans who average 1.3 to 1.5 children per family. The last few years, the most common name for newborn babies in the UK was the name Muhammed! The point being that Muslims are growing very fast in the UK and now that they have a greater percentage of the population they are starting to assert fundamental Islamic world views over others. Muslims traditionally don't push for these things when they are a small minority.

Also, it should be noted that most radical Muslims in the US are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The brotherhood believes in stealth Jihad. One of the most radicle Islamic entities in the US is Muslims of America. They follow an Iman from Pakistan called Al Jillani and they have over 31 rural training camps in the US. There mission is "to wait for the appropriate time". They train in weapons/explosives/hand to hand combat/land warfare right here in the US. So just because you don't see the numbers that you believe justify US Muslims as "a threat", that is simply because many radicle Muslims in the US operate under different orders then those in Muslim countries. There plan is long term and patient.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They have also been actively declaring that England will be an "Islamic State".

Yeah, and your point? They've been saying that about America, and I just do not see it ever happening in either America or England.

The Muslim birth rate in europe is about 7-9 children per family. Compare this to the native Europeans who average 1.3 to 1.5 children per family. The last few years, the most common name for newborn babies in the UK was the name Muhammed!

Typically, there are more slaves than masters, but the slaves remain the slaves. Just because there are more of them (and I want to see that 7-9 verified. You so crudely assumed I wouldn't show any of mine, yet you have provided none yourself, but you assumed a guy who, for whatever reason, had a count for both groups that was short, was correct) does not mean they can just take over. You also have to consider the difference between Muslims who are culturally Western, and Muslims who culturally come from the Middle East (and even then, not all of them are bad). When you see these "alarmist" numbers that involve these Muslims in the West who support Sharia as official law, very often they are not culturally Western Muslims. This is very crucial in this debate, as if there is such a clear divide between Muslims who are Western and Muslims who come from the Middle East, there clearly must be something asides from Islam that is causing this divide. There is something there, not here, that is making them over there more likely to turn extremist and support harsh conservative laws.

 

[Simplelogic]

Yeah, and your point? They've been saying that about America, and I just do not see it ever happening in either America or England.


Typically, there are more slaves than masters, but the slaves remain the slaves. Just because there are more of them (and I want to see that 7-9 verified. You so crudely assumed I wouldn't show any of mine, yet you have provided none yourself, but you assumed a guy who, for whatever reason, had a count for both groups that was short, was correct) does not mean they can just take over. You also have to consider the difference between Muslims who are culturally Western, and Muslims who culturally come from the Middle East (and even then, not all of them are bad). When you see these "alarmist" numbers that involve these Muslims in the West who support Sharia as official law, very often they are not culturally Western Muslims. This is very crucial in this debate, as if there is such a clear divide between Muslims who are Western and Muslims who come from the Middle East, there clearly must be something asides from Islam that is causing this divide. There is something there, not here, that is making them over there more likely to turn extremist and support harsh conservative laws.

I agree that there is more Muslims in America that are less religious in practice and less read when it comes to the Quran/Hadith. This is the primary reason for for the differing mindset. Generally the Muslims who are more devout and well read in the holy texts are the greater threat. That being said, even the moderate Muslims in America stop short of denouncing Islamic terrorism around the world. They are silent in the face of fanatic nut jobs who are doing more to publicly define Islam as a violent religion. The same way Muhammed did.

 

[rosends]

I tweaked my search parameters after reviewing the University of Maryland lists of groups and incidences ( GTD Search Results ) and comparing the FBI list with other lists (like the NCTC). I noticed that the specific definition of terrorism used by the FBI eliminates particular actions endemic to Islamic communities such as honor-based crimes. But with my new numbers I can report that during the years 1980 to 2005 there were 20 acts of terrorism by groups which one can assume represent Jewish interests, adding to 3 dead and 33 wounded, and 12 acts during that time by groups which are assumed to represent Muslim interests, adding to 2981 killed and 13048 wounded.

Since 2005, there have been 2 more incidences attributable to Islam type groups (2 more wounded) and none to Jewish groups. These lists do not include the Boston Marathon bombings so that would add another incident which killed 3 and injured 264.

The statistics also indicate that all the acts of "Jewish" based terror occurred between 1981 and 1986 and the "Muslim" based incidents occurred between 1980 and 2002 (plus the ones cited above). If the timing sample was, for example, 1990 to the present, there would be 8 Islamic acts and no Jewish ones.

Aren't statistics fun?

 

[Simplelogic]

 

[Simplelogic]

I tweaked my search parameters after reviewing the University of Maryland lists of groups and incidences ( GTD Search Results ) and comparing the FBI list with other lists (like the NCTC). I noticed that the specific definition of terrorism used by the FBI eliminates particular actions endemic to Islamic communities such as honor-based crimes. But with my new numbers I can report that during the years 1980 to 2005 there were 20 acts of terrorism by groups which one can assume represent Jewish interests, adding to 3 dead and 33 wounded, and 12 acts during that time by groups which are assumed to represent Muslim interests, adding to 2981 killed and 13048 wounded.

Since 2005, there have been 2 more incidences attributable to Islam type groups (2 more wounded) and none to Jewish groups. These lists do not include the Boston Marathon bombings so that would add another incident which killed 3 and injured 264.

The statistics also indicate that all the acts of "Jewish" based terror occurred between 1981 and 1986 and the "Muslim" based incidents occurred between 1980 and 2002 (plus the ones cited above). If the timing sample was, for example, 1990 to the present, there would be 8 Islamic acts and no Jewish ones.

I'm glad that you pointed out that "honor killings" are not considered terrorism. Honor killing is usually when a father kills a son or daughter because they converted. Other times it is carried out against a daughter who marries a non Muslim, which is forbidden in Islam.

Also, Nadal Hasan killed 12 and wounded many more in Texas. I assume that this wasn't considered "terrorism" either. Ha!

 

[rosends]

I'm glad that you pointed out that "honor killings" are not considered terrorism. Honor killing is usually when a father kills a son or daughter because they converted. Other times it is carried out against a daughter who marries a non Muslim, which is forbidden in Islam.

Also, Nadal Hasan killed 12 and wounded many more in Texas. I assume that this wasn't considered "terrorism" either. Ha!

That incident is listed as "individual" on the UMd search page - since no group took responsibility, it is not listed as affiliated with any ideological group. The FBI list included 2 incidents attributed to individuals where the motive was religiously based but this database doesn't do such. We would have to wait until the updated FBI list comes out to see how it is categorized. You can see the listing on the search results page, second from the bottom.

GTD Search Results

 

[Simplelogic]

That incident is listed as "individual" on the UMd search page - since no group took responsibility, it is not listed as affiliated with any ideological group. The FBI list included 2 incidents attributed to individuals where the motive was religiously based but this database doesn't do such. We would have to wait until the updated FBI list comes out to see how it is categorized. You can see the listing on the search results page, second from the bottom.

GTD Search Results

Game, set, match.