Let's talk about Islamophobia

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

The terror problem is growing exponentially people!

Do you have statistics to support this claim?

 

A quick google check of terror attacks in the period Jan 2016 through June 2016 shows the following:

January 97 attacks

February 68

March 108

April 150

May 197

June 212.

 

It took me long enough to search this and even I was surprised to find that there are this many. I would have guessed perhaps the number would be in the 30 to 45 per month but this is far beyond that. I did not bother to go back a few years or to take all the trouble to do an annual check, although perhaps somebody has already done this and could find the right site to have more numbers, but I would be uncomfortable trusting the federal government in DC to provide any accurate figures in recent years for obvious reasons.

 

This should be enough for even the most liberal amongst you all to say "we must do something and quit all the denial and head up our arses pretending or ignoring. We must act - it is without question world war 3. There are literally thousands of dead and many thousands more being injured and the lives of far too many millions are being adversely impacted by all this terrorist jihad (war).

 

Quite easy to find, and actual data doesn't support your claim that the "terror problem is growing exponentially".

 

LINK 1

LINK 2

[The Dude]

Yeah I was skeptical of that claim. Those numbers are still staggering. So obviously we have a reasonable concern here. At least compared to, say, Mormonism. "phobia" implies an irrational fear.

[NM11046]

 

 

Just wondering how many of you radical Muslim terrorism deniers are still in denial after Orlando, San Bernadino, Turkey, Bagdad, Paris, etc, etc, etc. Three attacks in the past week. I read a report that terrorist attacks are now averaging around 20 per month! A possible attack just today in NY city park from an "IED" bomb exploding after being stepped on (very early reports at this point but?). The terror problem is growing exponentially people! Then we have several down airplanes with many lives lost in the past year. It is getting worse without question! It is now reasonable to expect several more deadly attacks in this country before year end 2016. The time is NOW to respond strongly and with all due determination and deliberation with all of our allies and cooperators.

How quick you are to assume a home made firework on 4th of July weekend is a IED in NYC. What's wrong with you? You are an alarmist and very quick to try and place blame on a racial/religious group.

 

Oh and btw, there will be lots of explosions in the next 48 hours - it's not terrorism.

 

I did not assume it was a terrorist bomb although that does appear to be suspected and the 'fireworks' accident is now being pretty much dismissed. The explosive, whatever it turns out to be, was apparently buried or placed there a day or more before the victim had the misfortune to step on it and lose his foot in the blast. I have to wonder if you still believe that terror no big deal after over 200 attacks around the world in just the month of June. Perhaps dismissing terror attacks as little more than fireworks accidents makes you feel silly.

 

"A possible attack just today in NY city park from an "IED" bomb exploding after being stepped on (very early reports at this point but?)." Yes, you did assume.

 

I'm not sure what you're reading or hearing, but all the major news sources are reporting:

 

• Preliminary investigation suggests the explosion was an "experiment with fireworks or homemade explosives," NYPD Deputy Chief John O'Connell said at a news conference Sunday afternoon. "We do not have any evidence of a constructed device or commercial-grade fireworks," he said. "There are no specific, credible threats directed at New York or the July Fourth celebrations." It is not unusual for people to try and make homemade fireworks around the Fourth of July, O'Connell said, calling such activity "completely unadvisable." (CNN)
• "Police officials believe a homemade firework likely caused a blast in New York City's Central Park that seriously injured a man who stepped on it." (CBS)
• "Investigators believe it was part of an “experiment with fireworks,” police officials said, and declined to call the material a device. The police said they do not believe it was connected to terrorism." (NY Times)

 

AND - perhaps from a source that you'll find worthy:

 

• "Officials said there was no evidence the incident was terror-related, and the working theory revolved around a person testing explosives, perhaps in advance of the Fourth of July holiday. O’Connell and bomb squad commander Lt. Mark Torre said it was not unusual for individuals to create "homemade" fireworks as Independence Day celebrations approached. Officials were scouring the park for other, similar devices, but there was no evidence more than one existed. Authorities appeared to cast doubt on any nefarious motives. O’Connell said the explosive was not placed in a location “where somebody ordinarily would have stepped,” and Torre said investigators hadn’t found any evidence to show the device was a “constructive IED.” (FOX News)

 

So no, I don't "feel silly", but I continue to feel embarrassed that my fellow citizens, people like you are flaming the fires of prejudice and bigotry. That someone supposedly educated and well spoken as you are will take any circumstance and turn it into an opportunity to fan the fire of "the muslims are coming to get us" is a sad state of affairs.

[ZRod]

Did we ever stop to think that this is essentially gang violence? You have a group of vulnerable people who are trying to find meaning in life and protection. They join the group thinking they've found like minded individuals. We don't say we have a problem with black people, hispanics, itialians, Irish, asian, or jewish people do we? No, we have a gang problem. We don't have a problem with the religion of islam...

[84HuskerLaw]

Did we ever stop to think that this is essentially gang violence? You have a group of vulnerable people who are trying to find meaning in life and protection. They join the group thinking they've found like minded individuals. We don't say we have a problem with black people, hispanics, itialians, Irish, asian, or jewish people do we? No, we have a gang problem. We don't have a problem with the religion of islam...

 

 

 

 

 

Just wondering how many of you radical Muslim terrorism deniers are still in denial after Orlando, San Bernadino, Turkey, Bagdad, Paris, etc, etc, etc. Three attacks in the past week. I read a report that terrorist attacks are now averaging around 20 per month! A possible attack just today in NY city park from an "IED" bomb exploding after being stepped on (very early reports at this point but?). The terror problem is growing exponentially people! Then we have several down airplanes with many lives lost in the past year. It is getting worse without question! It is now reasonable to expect several more deadly attacks in this country before year end 2016. The time is NOW to respond strongly and with all due determination and deliberation with all of our allies and cooperators.

How quick you are to assume a home made firework on 4th of July weekend is a IED in NYC. What's wrong with you? You are an alarmist and very quick to try and place blame on a racial/religious group.

 

Oh and btw, there will be lots of explosions in the next 48 hours - it's not terrorism.

 

I did not assume it was a terrorist bomb although that does appear to be suspected and the 'fireworks' accident is now being pretty much dismissed. The explosive, whatever it turns out to be, was apparently buried or placed there a day or more before the victim had the misfortune to step on it and lose his foot in the blast. I have to wonder if you still believe that terror no big deal after over 200 attacks around the world in just the month of June. Perhaps dismissing terror attacks as little more than fireworks accidents makes you feel silly.

 

"A possible attack just today in NY city park from an "IED" bomb exploding after being stepped on (very early reports at this point but?)." Yes, you did assume.

 

I'm not sure what you're reading or hearing, but all the major news sources are reporting:

 

• Preliminary investigation suggests the explosion was an "experiment with fireworks or homemade explosives," NYPD Deputy Chief John O'Connell said at a news conference Sunday afternoon. "We do not have any evidence of a constructed device or commercial-grade fireworks," he said. "There are no specific, credible threats directed at New York or the July Fourth celebrations." It is not unusual for people to try and make homemade fireworks around the Fourth of July, O'Connell said, calling such activity "completely unadvisable." (CNN)
• "Police officials believe a homemade firework likely caused a blast in New York City's Central Park that seriously injured a man who stepped on it." (CBS)
• "Investigators believe it was part of an “experiment with fireworks,” police officials said, and declined to call the material a device. The police said they do not believe it was connected to terrorism." (NY Times)

 

AND - perhaps from a source that you'll find worthy:

 

• "Officials said there was no evidence the incident was terror-related, and the working theory revolved around a person testing explosives, perhaps in advance of the Fourth of July holiday. O’Connell and bomb squad commander Lt. Mark Torre said it was not unusual for individuals to create "homemade" fireworks as Independence Day celebrations approached. Officials were scouring the park for other, similar devices, but there was no evidence more than one existed. Authorities appeared to cast doubt on any nefarious motives. O’Connell said the explosive was not placed in a location “where somebody ordinarily would have stepped,” and Torre said investigators hadn’t found any evidence to show the device was a “constructive IED.” (FOX News)

 

So no, I don't "feel silly", but I continue to feel embarrassed that my fellow citizens, people like you are flaming the fires of prejudice and bigotry. That someone supposedly educated and well spoken as you are will take any circumstance and turn it into an opportunity to fan

[84HuskerLaw]

This is not a matter of bigotry or prejudice or racial hatred. Muslims are not a race as you know but a group of roughly 2 billion people of many races and ethnicities and so on. It is their beliefs and the actions as a result thereof that are the problem. It is the greatest social problem the entire world faces today, by far. How anyone cannot see this is simply incredible.

 

A cite to a source for terror attacks was provided. I pulled up the first one and amazingly I guess someone thinks that the data shows the terror problem is apparently not worth much discussion or concern to anybody. 12,000 attacks per year? Many many deaths and injuries and this of course doesn't even touch on the social and economic harm to countries and peoples worldwide!

 

How can you people simply dismiss this all as much ado about not much?

 

While I believe that one could debate the issue of 'exponential' or not, depending on the time frame we are considering (months, years, decades or longer) but any debate about the frequency and severity of terrorism and attacks and so is basically proven by the date. Obviously, there are many more attacks never reported or being accounted for certainly. One could further argue that all the 'attacks' in the form of harsh punishment and torture and other actions by Muslim men against Muslim women and slaves is a form of terror as well. Most Muslim women are defacto slaves and treated as chattel property. This is a worldwide atrocity that is on-going.

[Moiraine]

This is not a matter of bigotry or prejudice or racial hatred. Muslims are not a race as you know but a group of roughly 2 billion people of many races and ethnicities and so on. It is their beliefs and the actions as a result thereof that are the problem. It is the greatest social problem the entire world faces today, by far. How anyone cannot see this is simply incredible.

 

A cite to a source for terror attacks was provided. I pulled up the first one and amazingly I guess someone thinks that the data shows the terror problem is apparently not worth much discussion or concern to anybody. 12,000 attacks per year? Many many deaths and injuries and this of course doesn't even touch on the social and economic harm to countries and peoples worldwide!

 

How can you people simply dismiss this all as much ado about not much?

 

While I believe that one could debate the issue of 'exponential' or not, depending on the time frame we are considering (months, years, decades or longer) but any debate about the frequency and severity of terrorism and attacks and so is basically proven by the date. Obviously, there are many more attacks never reported or being accounted for certainly. One could further argue that all the 'attacks' in the form of harsh punishment and torture and other actions by Muslim men against Muslim women and slaves is a form of terror as well. Most Muslim women are defacto slaves and treated as chattel property. This is a worldwide atrocity that is on-going.

No, we can't debate whether the attacks have grown exponentially. There's a meaning to that word, and the word doesn't apply here regardless of which year you look at.

 

I find it incredible that you think the biggest social problem the entire world faces today can't be debated. It's not even worth getting into it with you how many other causes of death there are that are related to social issues that cause way more deaths than terrorism.

 

If terrorism-related deaths were actually increakng exponentially (and they're not) then maybe you could argue we need to panick and ban all muslims before it overtakes other causes.

 

Also, I don't think those numbers are accounting for population increase.

 

Lastly, terrorism is what people who can't afford drones and bombs resort too. The U.S. has killed far more civilians than terrorism. We killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in 10 years. We've probably done more to create terrorists with our wars than the terrorists' religion.

[Danny Bateman]

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/analysis.html

 

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

 

Prior to Orlando, right-wing extremist terrorists had killed more American citizens than had jihadists since 9/11.

 

I think it's reasonable to have a discussion about the different sources of terror Americans face, regardless of skin color.

[cm husker]

 

This is not a matter of bigotry or prejudice or racial hatred. Muslims are not a race as you know but a group of roughly 2 billion people of many races and ethnicities and so on. It is their beliefs and the actions as a result thereof that are the problem. It is the greatest social problem the entire world faces today, by far. How anyone cannot see this is simply incredible.

 

A cite to a source for terror attacks was provided. I pulled up the first one and amazingly I guess someone thinks that the data shows the terror problem is apparently not worth much discussion or concern to anybody. 12,000 attacks per year? Many many deaths and injuries and this of course doesn't even touch on the social and economic harm to countries and peoples worldwide!

 

How can you people simply dismiss this all as much ado about not much?

 

While I believe that one could debate the issue of 'exponential' or not, depending on the time frame we are considering (months, years, decades or longer) but any debate about the frequency and severity of terrorism and attacks and so is basically proven by the date. Obviously, there are many more attacks never reported or being accounted for certainly. One could further argue that all the 'attacks' in the form of harsh punishment and torture and other actions by Muslim men against Muslim women and slaves is a form of terror as well. Most Muslim women are defacto slaves and treated as chattel property. This is a worldwide atrocity that is on-going.

No, we can't debate whether the attacks have grown exponentially. There's a meaning to that word, and the word doesn't apply here regardless of which year you look at.

 

I find it incredible that you think the biggest social problem the entire world faces today can't be debated. It's not even worth getting into it with you how many other causes of death there are that are related to social issues that cause way more deaths than terrorism.

 

If terrorism-related deaths were actually increakng exponentially (and they're not) then maybe you could argue we need to panick and ban all muslims before it overtakes other causes.

 

Also, I don't think those numbers are accounting for population increase.

 

Lastly, terrorism is what people who can't afford drones and bombs resort too. The U.S. has killed far more civilians than terrorism. We killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in 10 years. We've probably done more to create terrorists with our wars than the terrorists' religion.

I have a real problem with your last paragraph. For one thing, ISIS had killed and displaced millions in the Middle East region. Far more than the US intentionally or unintentionally killed.

 

Second, where did you pull the 100,000 figure? You state it as though that's number killed in direct action by Americans, but I suspect you're playing fast and loose with the data. I'm sure if I dug into it, at best, that number is the amount of casualties attributed to the disruption of war or to enemy combatants (so only a small fraction of that figure would have been caused by direct action including drone strikes).

 

Also, I know you realize that we were the target of terrorist attacks long before 2002 (start of afghan campaign), so I don't think it's fair to argue that displacing the taliban was a bad thing for the world or that but for our war in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be attacked by terrorists. And displacing saddam was a good thing, too, but unfortunately we bungled the aftermath, including by pulling American troops too early.

 

Final note, the moral high ground will never be ceded to terrorists as long as we have always attacked legitimate military targets. A terrorist resorting to murdering civilians, including Muslims, because "he doesn't have drones and smart bombs" is not a legitimate excuse and it doesn't make him a freedom fighter.

 

That's my biggest issue here. Some left wingers seem to believe terrorism is all about striking back at an intrusive west, but in reality, these terrorists are as much about killing fellow, but opposing, Muslims.

 

It's impossible to take seriously the notion that they are somehow disenfranchised freedom fighters just striving to be free of western oppression.

[Moiraine]

 

 

This is not a matter of bigotry or prejudice or racial hatred. Muslims are not a race as you know but a group of roughly 2 billion people of many races and ethnicities and so on. It is their beliefs and the actions as a result thereof that are the problem. It is the greatest social problem the entire world faces today, by far. How anyone cannot see this is simply incredible.

 

A cite to a source for terror attacks was provided. I pulled up the first one and amazingly I guess someone thinks that the data shows the terror problem is apparently not worth much discussion or concern to anybody. 12,000 attacks per year? Many many deaths and injuries and this of course doesn't even touch on the social and economic harm to countries and peoples worldwide!

 

How can you people simply dismiss this all as much ado about not much?

 

While I believe that one could debate the issue of 'exponential' or not, depending on the time frame we are considering (months, years, decades or longer) but any debate about the frequency and severity of terrorism and attacks and so is basically proven by the date. Obviously, there are many more attacks never reported or being accounted for certainly. One could further argue that all the 'attacks' in the form of harsh punishment and torture and other actions by Muslim men against Muslim women and slaves is a form of terror as well. Most Muslim women are defacto slaves and treated as chattel property. This is a worldwide atrocity that is on-going.

No, we can't debate whether the attacks have grown exponentially. There's a meaning to that word, and the word doesn't apply here regardless of which year you look at.

 

I find it incredible that you think the biggest social problem the entire world faces today can't be debated. It's not even worth getting into it with you how many other causes of death there are that are related to social issues that cause way more deaths than terrorism.

 

If terrorism-related deaths were actually increakng exponentially (and they're not) then maybe you could argue we need to panick and ban all muslims before it overtakes other causes.

 

Also, I don't think those numbers are accounting for population increase.

 

Lastly, terrorism is what people who can't afford drones and bombs resort too. The U.S. has killed far more civilians than terrorism. We killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in 10 years. We've probably done more to create terrorists with our wars than the terrorists' religion.

I have a real problem with your last paragraph. For one thing, ISIS had killed and displaced millions in the Middle East region. Far more than the US intentionally or unintentionally killed.

 

Second, where did you pull the 100,000 figure? You state it as though that's number killed in direct action by Americans, but I suspect you're playing fast and loose with the data. I'm sure if I dug into it, at best, that number is the amount of casualties attributed to the disruption of war or to enemy combatants (so only a small fraction of that figure would have been caused by direct action including drone strikes).

 

Also, I know you realize that we were the target of terrorist attacks long before 2002 (start of afghan campaign), so I don't think it's fair to argue that displacing the taliban was a bad thing for the world or that but for our war in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be attacked by terrorists. And displacing saddam was a good thing, too, but unfortunately we bungled the aftermath, including by pulling American troops too early.

 

Final note, the moral high ground will never be ceded to terrorists as long as we have always attacked legitimate military targets. A terrorist resorting to murdering civilians, including Muslims, because "he doesn't have drones and smart bombs" is not a legitimate excuse and it doesn't make him a freedom fighter.

 

That's my biggest issue here. Some left wingers seem to believe terrorism is all about striking back at an intrusive west, but in reality, these terrorists are as much about killing fellow, but opposing, Muslims.

 

It's impossible to take seriously the notion that they are somehow disenfranchised freedom fighters just striving to be free of western oppression.

I think you're right. That was the total civilian deaths, which were indirectly caused by the invasion. 15,000 were directly caused by US forces.

 

For the rest; I don't think terrorists ever have the moral high ground, but I think the U.S. has done very sh**ty things under the guise of helping the world. I'm not saying terrorists are freedom fighters. I'm saying both can be wrong.

 

The interesting thing is the Taliban were called freedom fighters by the U.S. government when we were paying them shittons of money to fight Russia.

 

There's such a thing as thinking terrorists are awful but not ignoring the U.S. role in the increased number of terrorists partially due to our actions in the Middle East.

[cm husker]

I agree that the US has done sh**ty things around the world under all sorts of guises.

 

That aside, it's very important to understand the complex history of Afghanistan. The United States absolutely did not fund the Taliban (or foreign Mujadeen who would later help for Al Qaeda) in a fight against the Soviets. They funded local warlords/rebels, no doubt, but there was no "taliban" at that time. And of the native afghans who received support, only a fraction went onto fight for the taliban. It's not clear to me that supporting rebels against communists is an overall bad thing, though I think a strong argument could be made that free trade, even unilateral trade, with communist countries, would have freed far more hearts and minds than bullets and bombs have.

 

And while I openly acknowledge that the US has been far from perfect, it's not really useful to the current to debate to beat that drum because it's a fractional cause of the real issues at play, unless we want to talk about how western intervention and the cold war essentially kept the top on a boiling pot of internal division and sectarianism in the region -- for better or worse.

[cm husker]

Did we ever stop to think that this is essentially gang violence? You have a group of vulnerable people who are trying to find meaning in life and protection. They join the group thinking they've found like minded individuals. We don't say we have a problem with black people, hispanics, itialians, Irish, asian, or jewish people do we? No, we have a gang problem. We don't have a problem with the religion of islam...

 

In some ways I agree with you; for instance, I agree 100% that we don't have a problem with the religion of Islam in general. but ISIS and similar groups are different (and far more dangerous) than gangs and their violence, because ISIS isn't trying to corner an illicit market, but rather impose a specific government regime (theocracy) on the world.

 

That said, I don't equate ISIS and other caliphate minded muslims with all or even most or even more than a tiny fraction of muslims. At least no more than I did the Irish catholic republicans with catholics world wide. But I do think it's important to understand what's motivating this particular threat -- and while I agree there's usually money at play (in this case control over important oil and resource territories), the primary driver is a religious fanaticism that can't be headed off through liberalization, like we could head off gang violence by liberalizing laws related to illicit markets.

[84HuskerLaw]

I just have to wonder how many of you radical Islamic terror defenders have actually read any of the Koran or even basic explanations thereof. You will find that it is NOT a religion of peace or goodwill of any sort or pretense. We are not talking about a few thousand radicals around the globe but quite literally many MILLIONS. Recent polls by reliable polling orgs have shown as much as 20% or more of the Muslim population worldwide supports ISIS, Al Queda and other radical terror groups and those orgs and nations that sponsor them. 20% of 2 billion is 400 million (more than the US population people!).

When we have this many terror attacks around the globe on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis going on for generations and, I absolutely maintain, getting worse by the month (July is already awful) then we should be seeing literally millions and millions and millions of marchers, volunteers, armies, etc. out in force to stop the terror! Of course, we see nothing of the sort and 90% of those Muslims that come on TV or otherwise speak up on the subject do so in DEFENSE of the terrorists and or to continue to offer spin and purport to claim that Islam is the religion of peace and goodwill! LOL Never has such been the case anywhere. We saw cheering and joyous celebration around the world after 911 and never any serious help in the efforts to stop terror or prevent it.

 

We all rightly feel sad for the injured and killed and the terrible damage to the civlized world as a result of terror and any other violent actions.

But to say that the Nazis were not supported and cheered and encouraged by the great majority of the German people would also be untrue.

Does that mean that every German deserves to die or be punished for the terrible reign of terror of the Third Reich? No, but the majority of Germans were supportive and aided and abetted the attrocities and fought in the war for the Nazis and fascists and Axis powers.

 

The people of Germany were the enemy and rightfully so. Just as radical Muslims and all those who support, harbor and abide them, are the enemy and rightfully so. As President Bush so aptly stated it: "You are either with us or against us!" There is no sitting on the sidelines or hiding your head in the sand. Fight the terror or you support it. Only two sides are possible.

[cm husker]

"radical Islamic terror defenders"

 

Yeah, that's a fair label....

 

Here's some actual facts about who supports ISIS, and considering the media play, or lack thereof, it's surprising "uknown" or even favorable %'s aren't higher:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

 

Please post any videos of "Muslims that come on TV or otherwise speak up on the subject do so in defense of terrorists." I doubt you can find one outside of the terrorist videos themselves.

 

I don't have a problem with a demand for being "for us or against us" but I do wonder why you ignore than millions of Muslims who are fighting ISIS and providing intel against terrorist organizations. Maybe rather than Germany, you should look at the French who were mostly complacent (or even compliant) under Nazi occupation. Did all French who didn't fight for the resistance deserve to be considered "fence sitters"? Did they deserve to die?

[QMany]

20% of Muslims support ISIS!?! Link, please.