The Myth Of The Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

[josephpalazzo]

It's called collateral damage by the military.  It happens in war, but it is still the radical religious, on either side, that causes it to happen. When we invaded Iraq based on a lie that made everyone that was involved say OK, do it! It started the war, but it has nothing to do with the basic Islamic beliefs that justify violence and Sharia law in the name of Allah that was going on for thousands of years. Two wrongs don't make right. What's the answer? I don't have a clue, do you?   

To me, it means that at home, we need to focus on stamping out radicalization. Abroad, it means we only intervene if and only if our national interests are at stakes. Otherwise, we leave them alone. When we did that with communism, Vietnam  is a good example that when we left that country, the system eventually collapsed, not only there but just about everywhere communism ruled. Now, to get to the point of interfering less and less in those countries means to develop different sources of energy so that we don't depend on their oil as a humomgus part of their wealth is from the selling of oil. Cut off their revenue and it will go a long way in reducing the clout of these countries in supporting the different terrorist organisation across the globe.

[hrdlr110]

The definition of a radical Muslim in that video is based on belief in "sharia law", or "honor killing", or "the killing of civilians is sometimes justified" or "any sympathy for bin Laden", and this leads to over 600+ million radical Muslims. I'n not sure I can buy that. I'm pretty sure if you would poll Americans on similar questions, you would arrive at a very high number of Americans being radical. To me, you have to look of how many would actually act on their "impulse" to kill innocent lives based on ideology. I'm not sure all of those 600+ million Muslims, who expressed an opinion that we consider radical, they would necessarily act on that "impulse". It's true in the past, a good number of Muslims were silence after a terrorist attack. But this is no longer true. Many groups of Muslims are now expressing their outrage, and many individual Muslims are cooperating with the authorities to unmask these terrorists. And we should encourage more to come forward.

I would also consider those that fund, no matter how small the amount, radically motivated individuals to be radical as well. This might be a more difficult number to accurately measure, but it adds to, rather than subtracts from, that total number of radicals. Radical in thoughts and not deeds are still scary as they have the ability to transform and convince others to do things they would not do themselves. Over time though, our thoughts can become our actions, so, how many ticking time-bombs do we really have? And do people trust pollsters enough to be entirely forthcoming? Idk, just asking.

[hrdlr110]

Please notice that I didn't specify any particular radical group - most certainly there are radicals in the US. And they have control of way too much of everything.

[pr126]

Please notice that I didn't specify any particular radical group - most certainly there are radicals in the US. And they have control of way too much of everything.

A disclaimer?

[hrdlr110]

I suppose, but not out of fear, but rather, a realization that there are indeed radicals in the US.

[Hakurei Reimu]

In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number.

One percent of the population is still one percent of the population. Yes, 15 million is something to be concerned about, but it's still a minority.

However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this.  In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.

In reading your list of figures, I see that none of them address the actual relevant point towards whether or not these people would take up arms and do violence against other people. The worst it gets is with supporting such acts. Now, that's not admirable, I admit, but it's also not the same thing as actually being willing to take up arms and do the act themselves, no matter what sort of statistics you practice. Instead it's this nebulous "support" term that can mean different things to different people, from rah-rah to material support.

Vague terms invite vague statistics. They're useless, except in one way â€" to point out what we already know, that the Muslim world does not hold the Western world in high esteem. Given the behavior of America and Israel as of late, I'm not at all surprised at this. If I don't think much of American or Israeli actions in the Middle East, I can hardly fault Muslims for feeling the same way.

Yes, Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the holy land treat us as if we are monsters only fit to kill. On the other hand, we have gone a long way to legitimate that kind of treatment by treating Muslims the world over as if they were less than human. I don't mean pissant stuff like denying them Sharia; I mean shit like Guantanimo.

I'm reminded of Epictetus the Stoic advised: If it is concerned with what is not in your power, be ready with the answer that it is nothing to you. I can't change the way Muslims view us, but I can change the way my government treats them.

Top lawyers have written guidelines for British solicitors on drafting 'sharia-compliant' wills which can deny women an equal share of their inheritance and entirely exclude non-believers, it was revealed today.

*PFFT!* You do know that in general in Western-style probate, you can distribute your wealth as you see fit in your will, right? Sorry, but there is no creeping in of Sharia law here.

[josephpalazzo]

I would also consider those that fund, no matter how small the amount, radically motivated individuals to be radical as well. This might be a more difficult number to accurately measure, but it adds to, rather than subtracts from, that total number of radicals. Radical in thoughts and not deeds are still scary as they have the ability to transform and convince others to do things they would not do themselves. Over time though, our thoughts can become our actions, so, how many ticking time-bombs do we really have? And do people trust pollsters enough to be entirely forthcoming? Idk, just asking.

Just by looking at the cabal of shootings in the US, taking place just about every 2 or 3 days, by crazy loonies, it's easy to see that any democratic country can be a pool for recruiting radicals.

[MagetheEntertainer]

I'm kinda split on this video, I know that supporting sharia law doesn't necessarily make you an extremist, but on the other hand the people that are supporting the extremist in a way are just as bad because they build their moral.

[pr126]

It would help if one knew what sharia law is.

[Munch]

It would help if one knew what sharia law is.

Doesn't sound much different to Christianity to me. A group of laws written hundreds of years ago by barbaric sand people that is still practiced today, but that which is completely opposed to the standards of human rights today.
The difference is Christianity had to change and rewrite its own scriptures, and that unlike sharia law, the laws of western countries tries don't take bible stories as anything but standards for human rights.

As I've said before, if they want to practice their sand god worshipping barbaric rituals, do so in your own country, but keep the fuck out of my developed and progressive land.

[Munch]

You will have to keep them away by lethal force. Are you prepared to fight for your freedom?

I'm prepared to not give a shit about including religious practices in human rights, but they they choose to find common sense I'll gladly share a coffee with an ex-muslim.

[pr126]

I meant to fight those who want to impose sharia by force.
But watch out for stealth, subversion, and liers. There are many.
Some of the already in high office. In the WH, Homeland Security, Congress.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Well we're all gonna die anyway so there's no sense to arguing about it... Right? People are denied rights constantly here in South Carolina even without sharia laws.. Oh wait! It's those peaceful Christians doing it.. Carry on..

[Hakurei Reimu]

I meant to fight those who want to impose sharia by force.
But watch out for stealth, subversion, and liers. There are many.
Some of the already in high office. In the WH, Homeland Security, Congress.

Seriously? You're playing the 'Politician X is a secret Muslim' card?

You need to go back to your cage.

[stromboli]

This, from the previously cited link:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism

The 400 terrorists on whom I’ve collected data were the ones who actually targeted the “far enemy,” the U.S., as opposed to their own governments. I wanted to limit myself for analytical purity to that group, to see if I could identify anything different from other terrorist movements, which were far more nationalistic.

Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing - the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they’re just plain evil.

Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majorityâ€"90 percentâ€"came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.

Al Qaeda’s members are not the Palestinian fourteen-year- olds we see on the news, but join the jihad at the average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi- professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion. The natural sciences predominate. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, Zawahiri is a physician, Mohammed Atta was, of course, an architect; and a few members are military, such as Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, who is supposedly the head of the military committee.

Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children. Those who were not married were usually too young to be married. Only 13 percent were madrassa-trained and most of them come from what I call the Southeast Asian sample, the Jemaah Islamiyya (JI). They had gone to schools headed by Sungkar and Bashir. Sungkar was the head of JI; he died in 1999. His successor, Bashir, is the cleric who is being tried for the Jakarta Marriott bombing of August 2003; he is also suspected of planning the October 2002 Bali bombing.

As a psychiatrist, originally I was looking for any characteristic common to these men. But only four of the 400 men had any hint of a disorder. This is below the worldwide base rate for thought disorders. So they are as healthy as the general population. I didn’t find many personality disorders, which makes sense in that people who are antisocial usually don’t cooperate well enough with others to join groups. This is a well-organized type of terrorism these men are not like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, loners off planning in the woods. Loners are weeded out early on. Of the nineteen 9-11 terrorists, none had a criminal record. You could almost say that those least likely to cause harm individually are most likely to do so collectively.

At the time they joined jihad, the terrorists were not very religious. They only became religious once they joined the jihad. Seventy percent of my sample joined the jihad while they were living in another country from where they grew up.[1]

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, was attending community college. He was living in the U.S., not a "disaffected youth" in Pakistan.

From the Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism:

Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds. These conclusions are firmly supported by empirical analysis

Osama Bin Laden was an educated man whose family are wealthy and connected Saudi Arabians. There is evidence that much of his funding came from Saudi Arabian sources. Saudi Arabia is a hard line Islamic regime and theoretically an ally of the U.S..

The point is that, as stated by the Rand report that Normal is the description of the source material or population for terrorists. They are not growing out of poverty and disaffection, but from middle and upper middle class families that have achieved success.

If Tamerian Tsarnaev, a man who had a family and who had the means to live a good life in the U.S. can become a bomber capable of killing innocents just to prove some political/religious point, can we really base trust on a religion that claims to be the religion of peace?

And as the article stated, 70% of the people who joined were in countries other than the one they grew up in, which makes Tsarnaev "typical". Question: based on that, how many potential members of Islam that have come to this country are potential Tsarnaevs? Obviously it is impossible to know. Call me islamophobic all you want, But I think to ignore the potential is not smart.

Where does ISIS recruit from?
http://www.bustle.com/articles/40535-how-does-isis-recruit-exactly-its-techniques-are-ruthless-terrifying-and-efficient

I won't quote the article, you can read it. ISIS is very media savvy and it knows the audience it draws recruits from.
They have gained 6,000 new members since airstrikes began.

My son, three tour veteran of the Middle East, said that all we did was teach them how to fight us. They learned.

This:
http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-recruiting-westerners-countries-2014-8

Innes Bowen, author of "Inside British Islam," told Business Insider there was no single type of person who becomes a radical in the U.K., and no single pathway to their ideology.

"There must be a range of motivations â€" a sense of adventure, a misplaced sense of duty or idealism â€" some of those recruited are well versed in ideology and the politics of their radical cause others are surprisingly ignorant," Bowen said.

Can you say "rank and file?" Poo poo all you want, call me an Islamophobe, but I think I'm justified in saying that all of Islam has the potential for being dangerous and that a significant minority, if not a majority, of Islam is at least sympathetic to the terrorists.