[Closed] British Muslims.

Simple answer: faith schools off curriculum create the siege mentality early on.

So every Muslim thinks and acts in exactly the same way?

I don't get it all, but it really is very depressing. I'm not religious, but this is more than just religion.

All I can say is thank god* they don't seem to hate us enough to be fighting on our shores.........yet.

*yes, yes something about ironing!

And when I say 'they' I don't mean all Muslims, just the ones buggering off to Syria to fight.

So every Muslim thinks and acts in exactly the same way?

I doubt it, but the tendency towards relying on guidance from authority figures external to the immediate family and it's own internal dynamic, is beginning to look like the Muslim cultural norm (at least to me as an outsider paying attention to the debate), in the same way that the "Western" habit of internal reliance in the family unit and parental guidance is another.

I know loads of Muslims. Apart from not having a beer when they go to the pub and fasting all summer they are no different to the non-muslims I know.
Think about it, the parents of the kids that have gone to Syria are hardly gonna sit there and say it's all their fault.
I don't think you can judge an entire culture based on the comments of a handful of members of that community.

I don't think you can judge an entire culture based on the comments of a handful of members of that community.

I agree, but the suggestion is being made from a Muslim source, that the cultural tendency is there, possibly as a sort of unconcious undertow much as in the same way as the automatic deference to the upper classes used to be a "British" trait.

Think about it, the parents of the kids that have gone to Syria are hardly gonna sit there and say it's all their fault.

No, but they could be in denial about the degree to which they might actually bear some responsibility for it?

Apart from the intense religiosity of the cult to which they belong, of course, which is a religiosity that is largely in it's death throes among the non-Muslim populations of Europe amongst whom they live...

What or which religiosity are you referring to? I'm having trouble trying to understand your meaning there OP. Apart from a possible subtext of your usual inference to religion.

Please explain, ta.

All generalizations are false. FACT!

I suspect those that blame the Imans/security services are doing it to offset their feelings of guilt and failure, in the same way that non-Muslim parents blame teachers/the Police/the government when their kids do bad stuff.

What or which religiosity are you referring to? I'm having trouble trying to understand your meaning there OP. Apart from a possible subtext of your usual inference to religion.

Please explain, ta.

My impression is that Muslims are more closely tied to their religion than, say, "Anglican"-type Christians, as evidenced by their worship attendance, displays of appearance requirements (beard styles with men, various levels of covering with women), repetition of the Koran and Hadith learned by heart, reference to these in most if not all commentary by spokesmen during TV discussions, adherance to dietary rules and so on.

I suspect those that blame the Imans/security services are doing it to offset their feelings of guilt and failure, in the same way that non-Muslim parents blame teachers/the Police/the government when their kids do bad stuff.

That's a very good point. So what you're saying is the stage props look different, but the root cause is the same.

Hmm.

I don't think you can judge an entire culture based on the comments of a handful of members of that community.

This is the usual "You cant discuss a topic because the Muslims I know are top blokes and of the 3bn you havent spoken to them all therefore your arguments are worthless routine"
Sam Harris quoted research that indicated the number of Muslims who had voted for Jihadist parties over a significant period (which is a reasonable study and statistic to accept as representative) at around 15%.
He claimed that other studies (Harris would have checked these meticulously) indicated that on certain extreme subjects such as the punishment for Apostophy that the numbers were significantly higher (I think > 60%)
I think that provides enough to begin a debate.

Plus I always enjoy Woppits threads!

Did I say you can't discuss it?
Just humansisng the subject matter.

on certain extreme subjects such as the punishment for Apostophy...

To be fair, apostrophe misuse is a very serious issue.

Isn't' it?

I dream of a world where I put the radio on or the TV or read a newspaper where every other story is not about bloody Muslims...

Agree with loddrick there.

on certain extreme subjects such as the punishment for Apostophy...
To be fair, apostrophe misuse is a very serious issue.

Isn't' it?

As is using words that you've just invented. 😉

I dream of a world where I put the radio on or the TV or read a newspaper where every other story is not about bloody [s]Muslims[/s] football...

As above very hard to generalise. I don't think Muslims parents are alone in trying to make some else responsible for their kids behaviour. There are elements of Muslim society which give undue influence to imams (who can be self declared preachers) and can be very patriarchal and unquestioning. This can create a scenario where people can rapidly become radicalised. Someone who wats to follow a radical path can find an Imam who supports those views and a more moderate preacher will be ignored by such an individual

Over the past week we've seen a range of views expressed by Muslim bodies from "its all someone else's fault" to "we must take responsibility". I know Muslims who drink alcohol and don't observe Ramadan, as well as those that are observant. Again you cannot generalise.

As for the women who've gone to Syria I don't really see what the authorities could have done. If they had prevented them travelling to Suadi / Mecca there would have been outrage. They made a decision they didn't want to live in UK but instead in Syria.

I don't think Muslims parents are alone in trying to make some else responsible for their kids behaviour.

True enough, but one has to say that there's a difference betwee making excuses for your kids putting their feet on the bus seats, nicking sweets from the newsagent, and cutting people's heads off.

Again you cannot generalise

I think you have to generalise. Unless you assume that their is no common thread and that 3bn people are all acting independently and we therefore need 3bn approaches!

True enough, but one has to say that there's a difference betwee making excuses for your kids putting their feet on the bus seats, nicking sweets from the newsagent, and cutting people's heads off

What about the non-Muslims who shoot church goers because of their colour, or kneecap informers, or use bombs to blow up town centres to further their religious/political cause?

Interesting hypothesis... But plenty of non Muslim Brits expect 'the authorities' to do something for them too. The concept of a Bountiful State (where authority does everything for you) is arguably more a generational thing than a cultural thing...those of us brought up post Thatcher may not buy into the idea that the council,police,whoever..will be around to wipe our bottoms and feed us.

[i]it is a cultural norm among Muslims to simply expect guidance from authority [/i]

Is it? Any proof for that assumption, or just a POV disguised?

As someone of Irish catholic heritage I'd just like to apologise for the behavior of the IRA during the troubles. I understand now that I am collectively responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings, amongst other atrocities, and so are my parents who did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Sorry. 😥

I suspect those that blame the Imans/security services are doing it to offset their feelings of guilt and failure, in the same way that non-Muslim parents blame teachers/the Police/the government when their kids do bad stuff.

Nail/ Head !
For some, everything, [i]everything[/i] is always somebody elses fault these days.

Thank Christ that the West's lite-islam is the 'true' interpretation otherwise we'd all be well a truly screwed. Almost got me worried there, phew.

the number of Muslims who had voted for Jihadist parties over a significant period (which is a reasonable study and statistic to accept as representative) at around 15%.

And the number of UK citizens who voted for parties with racist tendencies at our last election was around 13%. So 1 in 8 people posting on this thread has an agenda to misrepresent other cultures. Statistics are great aren't they.

Given our leaders (elected and otherwise) and security services long allegiance with Saudi Arabia:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

^Same bloke as with Thatcher, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan ]Bandar Bin Sultan[/url], Saudi Ambassador to USA 1983-2005

[img] https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Lcw6rgY3Otvvm.6SqDy_4g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM4MDtxPTc1O3c9NjQw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/video/video.sky.com/9ab1859e23e088b9a030e5f0b4391c36 [/img]

Isn't it a bit odd that the most extreme form of islam, Wahhabism, which led to the rise of ISIS [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html ]has been actively promoted in mosques throughout the UK and worldwide by Saudi Arabian interests[/url]

an undercover reporter for Channel 4 filmed preachers and obtained DVDs and books inside mosques which were filled with hate-filled invective against Christians and Jews. They condemned democracy and called for jihad. They presented women as intellectually congenitally deficient and in need of beating when they transgressed Islamic dress codes. They said that children over the age of 10 should be hit if they did not pray. Again the main mosque chosen for exposure was influenced and funded from Saudi Arabia.

"Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools".

The ties are close enough that, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Faisal_Al_Saud ]Prince Turki bin Faisal[/url], who was director general of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency from 1977 to 2001 (resigning the position abruptly on 1 September 2001, some ten days before the September 11 attacks in which 14 Saudi nationals hijacked commercial American airliners), then went on to become ambassador to the Court of St. James's:

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=9QMziWNtBI6whP66vhs4oU8oDbfaBtGaQoiJ28ewjfigV6nlrP9jn1yqTto%2B7HSo[/img]

Before going on to replace Prince Bandar (his cousin, involved with the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal ]very dodgy Al-Yamamah BAE arms deals[/url] and shown with Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair above) as Ambassador to the US.

Add to the mix [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]well founded allegations that the intelligence services have been involved in promoting extremism[/url]

A few years ago, BBC Newsnight proudly hosted a “debate” between Maajid Nawaz, director of counter-extremism think-tank, the Quilliam Foundation, and Anjem Choudary, head of the banned Islamist group formerly known as al-Muhajiroun, which has, since its proscription, repeatedly reincarnated itself. One of its more well-known recent incarnations was "Islam4UK".

Both Nawaz and Choudary have received huge mainstream media attention, generating press headlines, and contributing to major TV news and current affairs shows. But unbeknown to most, they have one thing in common: Britain’s security services. And believe it or not, that bizarre fact explains why the Islamic State’s (IS) celebrity beheader, former west Londoner Mohammed Emwazi – aka “Jihadi John” - got to where he is now.

and we really have to ask some probing questions

And so to jhj...

chewkw next with his maggots, I suppose.

Oh well.

It must be very confusing for British Muslims. They're told:

- Listen to the people we think are your "community leaders".
- Unless they're community leaders we don't like.
- But don't listen too much, we want to you assimilate into British society.
- Be more responsible for what your young people do.
- Unless you're telling them to wear headscarves or something.
- When there's an atrocity committed by a Muslim, remember you're partly responsible, because you're one of them.
- But when the UK does something bad in a Muslim country, don't complain - you should be British first, remember.

What about the non-Muslims who shoot church goers because of their colour, or kneecap informers, or use bombs to blow up town centres to further their religious/political cause?

What about the other 99.9 percent of terrorism that's related to Islamism?

I'm excluding Israel in my definition of terrorism, before any smart arses get ideas.

I'm excluding Israel in my definition of terrorism, before any smart arses get ideas.

Well, if you're going to define terrorism in your own special way, then of course you can make the numbers do whatever you like.

But in terms of civilian deaths and terror caused to innocent people, the West is way out in front. And a white terrorist in the US just killed more Americans in one go than ISIS have managed in total.

Have you got sources for that Tom?

Let’s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims over the past five years?

Because I am talking about non-state terrorism Ben.

Jive, let's look at 2015 shall we.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

The only non-muslim terrorist event would appear to be a couple of knife attacks carried out by Japanese and korean Nationalists, and the Dylan Roof massacre.

My point in all this, is that these issues can't be skirted round by partaking in some western guilt tripping by highlighting when our own nutbacks go off the rails.

2015 is still in progress and as such doesn't really show the bigger picture...

What percent of terrorist attacks (in Europe) were committed by Muslims over the past five years?

We also have to consider who defines what a 'terrorist' attack is, as apparently, a white guy shooting fellow humans with a different skin colour in a church doesn't count

Because I am talking about non-state terrorism Ben.

Referring back to my post on the last page and in particular [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]this link[/url] we have to question how much terror doesn't have some degree of state involvement.

What percent of terrorist attacks (in Europe) were committed by Muslims over the past five years?

Why do you only care about terrorist attacks in Europe? Non-Europeans not deserving of being free from the fear of being blown into the stratosphere by a car bomb?

Also, by using the search term "5 years" you are deliberately selecting a small sample size and doing the same as what you accuse me of.

Well, being as this is a thread about British Muslims, including the rest of Europe is being quite generous...

Also, by using the search term "5 years" you are deliberately selecting a small sample size and doing the same as what you accuse me of.

Perhaps you'd like to compile a study for us to peruse?

Well, being as this is a thread about British Muslims, including the rest of Europe is being quite generous...

It's partly about British Muslims going to Syria and blowning themselves up, yes? But when British Muslims do that, it's not terrorism cuz they didn't blow Brits or mainland Europeans up right?

The only non-muslim terrorist event would appear to be a couple of knife attacks carried out by Japanese and korean Nationalists.

Apart from the ones in the Philippines, Macedonia, Ukraine, Baluchistan, and of course Charleston, South Carolina.

You do know all the ones carried out in the Philippines were mostly carried out by Islamic terrorists right? There's one....all of one...carried out by some communist guerillas.

So it looks like my number probably stands at 95 percent.

Quick experiment:

It's partly about British [s]Muslims[/s] soldiers going to [s]Syria[/s] other people countries on the orders of their superiors and blowing [s]themselves up[/s] civilians up and polluting the land for generations, yes? But when British [s]Muslims[/s] Soldiers do that, it's not terrorism cuz they didn't blow Brits or mainland Europeans up right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've deviated too far from facts

Oh I don't agree with the Iraq war etc or at least the way in which we carried it out, you're still using whatabouterry in an attempt to derail a legitimate concern.

Because I am talking about non-state terrorism Ben.

Just picked up on this - isn't that precisely the point? State terrorism is orders of magnitude worse than non-state terrorism, but somehow it's okay because it's a country doing it?

All Muslims are somehow responsible for Muslim terrorist acts, but when our country - run by the government we actually elect - does something horrific we just call it collateral damage.

Just picked up on this - isn't that precisely the point? State terrorism is orders of magnitude worse than non-state terrorism, but somehow it's okay because it's a country doing it?

I reckon the mayhem caused by ISIS probably eclipses what we managed to do in all the time we were in Iraq. Having said that, I guess ISIS is partly a product of our intervention. Who knows what kind of insanity would have ensued if Saddam was still about though.

Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea on paper, we just never carried the job out properly. I've got a number of Iraqi friends who attest to this.

What about supporting Saddam in the 1st place?
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/28/iraq.politics1 ]
How £1bn was lost when Thatcher propped up Saddam
[/url]

For more than a decade, yellowing paper files in a government store have hidden the story of the way £1bn of Whitehall money was thrown away in propping up Saddam Hussein's regime and doing favours for arms firms.

It took place when many in both the British and US administrations were covertly on President Saddam's side. But as yet another war against the Iraqi dictator looms, what may be the final skeleton in Britain's arms-to-Iraq cupboard has been uncovered.

Or providing weapons and training to Rebel groups affiliated with ISIS?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq ]Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq[/url]

the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.

Seems this is a fair representation, taking into account some members the Mujahadeen went on to become the Taliban + Al Qaeda:

[img] [/img]

Though we shouldn't just cast scrutiny on the US, as our government and intelligence services have been every bit as complicit.

And that's before you take into account [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]their involvement in domestic extremism[/url]

Any updates on reliable figures for percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe involving Muslims?

How about percentage of terrorist attacks in the US?

Who knows what kind of insanity would have ensued if Saddam was still about though.

You know you're in a bad place when you make jhj look like the voice of reason 🙂

What about supporting Saddam in the 1st place?

How £1bn was lost when Thatcher propped up Saddam

Again, never said that I agreed with that. More whatabouttery.

Any updates on reliable figures for percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe involving Muslims?

Again, why do you only care about European attacks, when we are exporting European Muslims to carry out attacks elsewhere? Is it not terrorism if they don't do it on European soil?

The muslims you notice, are the ones that stand out. Likewise the muslims that get reported on by the media and discussed by politicians. White british people who stand out are dismissed easily as outliers. Stereotyping is always, always bollocks.

And that's without getting into the many flavours of muslims, it's like assuming catholics, the church of england, and the wee frees are all basically the same because they're christians.

You're argument is at odds with the stats though isn't it Northwind.

How many non-muslim Brits are currently joining non-state based terrorist groups - now how many Muslim Brits have travelled to Syria/Iraq to join ISIS? Now let's compare those numbers against the percentage population of each demographic.

Ignoring it and digging your head in the sand whilst decrying anyone who discusses the issue as a stereotyper/racist will only make the issue worse.

Why do our Muslims want to fight Assads forces?
Is it due to his human rights violations, is he the wrong type of Muslim or do they just want a ruck?
If Isis didn't dress in black and weren't really good at waving flags would they still have the same allure?
What type of Muslims do we have and do they get uppity with the other type over here?

Again, never said that I agreed with that. More whatabouttery.

Thatcher supported Saddam with Taxpayer's money, Taxpayer's money then went on the Gulf war and Invasion of Iraq, both of which were started under false pretenses with media collusion:

[img] [/img]

Many lives were lost.

No 'whatabouttery' there.

when we are exporting European Muslims to carry out attacks elsewhere?

Muslims who have been radicalized by [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html ]Saudi Funded Wahhabism[/url] and [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]MI5/MI6/State Media backed extremists
[/url]
No 'whatabouttery' there

Is it not terrorism if they don't do it on European soil?

Refer back to this:

It's partly about British [s]Muslims[/s] soldiers going to [s]Syria[/s] other people countries on the orders of their superiors and blowing themselves up civilians up and polluting the land for generations, yes? But when British [s]Muslims[/s] Soldiers do that, it's not terrorism cuz they didn't blow Brits or mainland Europeans up right?

Define terrorism, then perhaps we can continue the debate...

Again more whatabouttery, just because Tony Blair went to war/engaged in state sponsored terrorism despite 49-50 percent of the country not wanting him to, doesn't mean to say that one cannot highlight a legitimate issue in the present.

Totally bollocks argument, and I say that despite having sympathy with your point of view.

I am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks dosprpportionaly high .

Tom_W1987 - Member

You're argument is at odds with the stats though isn't it Northwind.

No, the stats precisely prove my point, as does your post. There's almost 3 million british muslims. Estimates vary for how many british muslims are fighting for Isis- the MOD says 500, others say 1500, either way it is a tiny proportion- about 1% of 1%.

So. The muslims you've noticed, are the ones that stand out.

No, the stats precisely prove my point, as does your post. There's almost 3 million british muslims. Estimates vary for how many british muslims are fighting for Isis- the MOD says 500, others say 1500, either way it is a tiny proportion- about 1% of 1%.

So. The muslims you've noticed, are the ones that stand out.

It's still an issue though isn't it, 500-1500 is another 500-1500 fighters/supporters for ISIS currently causing mayhem in Syria/Iraq. And something is causing those people to make that journey and sympathise with ISIS (seeing as that number likely makes the Muslim demographic at least 1000 times more likely to join a terrorist group than the rest of the country, ignoring Irish nationals), dismissing them as statistical outliers won't help people in Syria. Will it?

500-1500 fighters/supporters for ISIS

And something is causing those people to make that journey and sympathise with ISIS

=

Muslims who have been radicalized by Saudi Funded Wahhabism and MI5/MI6/State Media backed extremists

If there is proof of the security services funding ISIS as opposed to other players, then heads need to roll Jive.

Tom_W1987 - Member

(seeing as that makes the Muslim demographic at least 1000 times more likely to join a terrorist group than the rest of the country, ignoring Irish nationals

Means precisely nothing. Of course muslims are more likely to join an islamic jihadist movement than nonmuslims, just like white british people are more likely to join the national front than muslims, or cyclists are more likely to join British Cycling. It is just inevitable self-selection, and it's not actually interesting let alone worrying.

The odds of any individual british muslim joining ISIS are vanishingly small. The odds of a british person who joins ISIS being a muslim are incredibly high. That's statistics. You're welcome.

Means precisely nothing. Of course muslims are more likely to join an islamic jihadist movement than nonmuslims, just like white british people are more likely to join the national front, or cyclists are more likely to join British Cycling.

False, there are far far fewer individuals of other demographics joining non-state terrorist groups of any sort. I'd wager the difference between the two groups would be statistically significant.

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw, last time I checked they weren't a designated terrorist group and have yet to carry out any actions that would make them one.

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw

True, the intelligence services don't waste time and money arming and training the National Front for combat

Tom_W1987 - Member

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw.

Pretending people have said something they didn't isn't hilarious, it just shows how feeble your argument is. I didn't compare the national front to ISIS. I didn't compare British Cycling to ISIS, for that matter. I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Pretending people have said something they didn't isn't hilarious, it just shows how feeble your argument is. I didn't compare the national front to ISIS. I didn't compare British Cycling to ISIS, for that matter. I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Put this another way. Most African-Americans don't murder people, however, a huge percentage of murders carried out in the US are carried out by African-Americans. Using your logic, your response would be "yeah but most African-American's don't murder people". What I'm saying, is that not discussing the issue sensibly and not researching the social causes and fixing them does that community a profound disservice and allows racists to derail the argument.

I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Epic stats fail.

So, being as confining it Europe is too biased for your cosmopolitan tastes, have you come up with any reliable long term figures for percentage of terrorist* attacks carried out by Muslims?

Crankboy may be on the right track:

I am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks disproportionately high .

*whatever that means

am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks disproportionately high .

That was for attacks on US soil...since the 1960s.

I know loads of Muslims. Apart from not having a beer when they go to the pub and fasting all summer they are no different to the non-muslims I know.

Oh and there seem to be plenty of white British who are under the impression that bringing up their kids is not their responsibility.

So, being as confining it Europe is too biased for your cosmopolitan tastes, have you come up with any reliable long term figures for percentage of terrorist* attacks carried out by Muslims?

For 2011, Sunni terrorism alone accounted for 70 percent of non-state based terrorism.

So you're relying on 1 year and not providing a source... pretty solid evidence there

The source is an NCTC report on terrorism. Google is your friend.

Again, I'm using common sense here but I don't think that numbers changed too much since 2011.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Epic stats fail.

Oh go on, explain the flaw in my statistics, it'll be fun. Or are you just going to declare it to be an "epic fail" and then run away?

This isn't an argument about nonprejudice vs prejudice... It's an argument about mathematics vs prejudice. The only way you can fight that argument is by retreating into illogic, deceit and nonsequitors, you did that fast and early, well done.

But it's just a simple fact; the muslims you're talking about are a tiny minority. This isn't about PC, or even really about prejudice, it's about the fact that if you want to tackle a problem, you need to look realistically at the causes. And clearly it's not about being muslim, because if it were, more than 1% of 1% of british muslims would have joined ISIS.

Your desire to make is simple, makes it meaningless.

Oh go on, explain the flaw in my statistics, it'll be fun. Or are you just going to declare it to be an "epic fail" and then run away?

This isn't an argument about nonprejudice vs prejudice... It's an argument about mathematics vs prejudice. The only way you can fight that argument is by retreating into illogic, deceit and nonsequitors, you did that fast and early, well done.

Do you disagree with the fact that Muslims are joining non-state based terrorist organisations at a higher rate in comparison to the rest of the population, and if so, what groups are all these non-Muslim Brits joining and in what numbers? You won't find anything.

Your argument simply seems to hinge on "Muslims join ISIS cuz their muslim....you're self selecting".

Similar to binners, as a Welshman I would like to apologise for...

well nothing really. Zilch, nada.

Cos we're fab/bendigedig!

😀

This isn't about PC, or even really about prejudice, it's about the fact that if you want to tackle a problem, you need to look realistically at the causes. And clearly it's not about being muslim, because if it were, more than 1% of 1% of british muslims would have joined ISIS.

You can't look at the causes is you deny there is an issue in the first place. I never said the cause was "being Muslim", that's being deliberately obtuse. Using your logic though, we shouldn't even be considering social causes within the Muslim community that might be driving people towards extremism.

You won't find anything.

Not engaging in a "debate" with you mainly because its impossible for the reasons NW notes 😛

You'd describe Kurds fighting ISIS as terrorists? As opposed to fighting a war of self defence? When they were fighting Turkey, they could have been. I don't think they could currently be described as a terrorist organisation.

Neither do I agree with Brits being allowed to fight for Israel, again, more whatabouttery.

I'm using common sense here

Debatable, but on that note:

Something that has just occurred to me is just how relevant figures for Terrorist attacks in Western Countries are... after all, the west has invaded and destabilized many Arabic countries, without genuine provocation (fabricated provocation has of course been used on multiple occasions)

Even after all that, figures show that Terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims are a very low percentage:

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/15/the-number-of-terrorists-who-are-actually-religiously-motivated-will-surprise-you-5023616/ ]less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years have been carried out by muslims[/url]

[url= https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum ]of terrorist attacks on US soil from 1980-2005, Muslims only accounted for 6%[/url]

Of course, taking common sense into account, that is only part of the picture, in that same period, the lives lost and instability fuelled by actions of allied military and intelligence services in the Middle East and elsewhere will have far surpassed any terrorist* activity and fuelled extremism and hatred, motivating further conflict and terrorism*

*Whatever that means

Tom_W1987 - Member

Do you disagree with the fact that Muslims are joining non-state based terrorist organisations at a higher rate in comparison to the rest of the population, and if so, what groups are all these non-Muslim Brits joining and in what numbers? You won't find anything.

That would kind of be the point. Non-muslim terrorists can't join Anti-Islamic State, because there isn't one. The existance, accessibility and huge public presence of jihadist terrorist organisations gives them a flag and an easy road to follow. Anti-islamic terrorists in the UK just set fire to a mosque.

At my school, there was a chess club but no draughts club. Nobody joined the draughts club, that must mean there were no draughts players.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Your argument simply seems to hinge on "Muslims join ISIS cuz their muslim....you're self selecting".

No, just... no. I don't think you're stupid enough to think that's what I'm saying. On the contrary, I think you're clever enough to avoid engaging with what I'm actually saying. Though, still daft enough to bring stats into an argument that can only be lost with stats.

You'd describe Kurds fighting ISIS as terrorists?