All Muslims aren't terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim, or ...

[Zoe]

Starving Artist: So far, no one has shown me where my view is distorted. Do you believe that if all the terrorists in the world were rounded up as individuals, that Muslim extremists would not constitute the overwhelming majority? If you can, I will be more than happy to listen.

I think that Larry Mudd did a particularly good job of supporting his view that Muslims are not the overwhelming majority of terrorists. Did you not read his comments about the last 100 reported terroristic bombings? Do you not understand that in the United States you are more likely to hear about Muslim terrorists and that that is not representative of what is happening in the world at large – even as reported by our own State Department? (Outside of Israel and India in 2002 it stood at 53%) Were you “happy to listen” to this information provided to you?

I don’t think so. And that is why I suggested to you and do so again: Educate yourself on these matters. Don’t just go by what we have to say. Look at reliable and reputable outside sources for information.

May I remind you of what another well-respected poster to this thread said:

Qadgop the Mercotan: Starving Artist, you continue to claim that the vast majority of terrorists are muslim, even after being presented with evidence which indicates your claim is not likely to be true. Yet you present no evidence to support your claim.

Are you really going to be one of those people who doesn’t want to be confused with the facts?

Starving Artist:I would point out that there is virtually none of the scathing condemnation directed toward the “freedom and tolerance” bigots on this board that I see directed elsewhere.

At first it was “freedom and tolerance crowd.” You admitted they were individuals. Then the description became*“freedom and tolerance” bigots* – which is an oxymoron. Since you have put the words freedom and tolerance in quotation marks, I’m not sure what you are saying. Will you clarify, please. And tell us why they are deserving of “scathing condemnation.”

Pax

[Starving_Artist]

@Larry Mudd

What was all that about Islamacists’ hatred of “The American Way of Life,” about, then?

I see you are misremembering what I said so as to further bolster your scorn of my position. I did not say “American” way of life." I said “Western” way of life. This would include France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, etc.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Starving Artist

Hello, EddyTeddyFreddy. You may well have a point as the American media is where my news comes from.

Then you need to broaden your horizons, because even the most “liberal”-slanted news media in the United States won’t give you the perspective that foreign news outlets will. No matter how good your American resources, they’re only offering part of the picture.

I’d suggest starting with an examination of online sources from, say, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada – places that are basically friendly to us, yet capable of seeing things about the USA that we can’t or won’t. You might be surprised at how differently even our friends see some issues. Then go check out sources like Al-Jazeera. ACK! – Yes, I mean it, and French and German outlets, and whatever else you can dig up. They’ll all have English-language versions online. Be prepared to be infuriated – but also be prepared to ask yourself what legitimate grievances, modern and historical, underlie the viewpoints you’ll read.

I well recall standing outside the polls, sign-holding for my candidate, the year of the Iranian hostage crisis (dating myself!). Holding another candidate’s sign was a nice, friendly, suburban-mom-type woman, who wondered plaintively “Why can’t those Iranians just let them go and be friends with us?” She had absolutely no conception of why “those people” could possibly think any differently from her. (Study the 19th and 20th century history of Iran, and it will be abundantly clear why.)

If you have evidence that some other group is predominant, I would very much like to hear about it.

I posit this: no one group IS predominant. You can’t even lump all Muslim terrorists together, as others in this thread have pointed out – they have differing motives and goals. There are many other terrorist movements (Shining Path, Tamil Tigers, Basques, etc., etc.) that aren’t Islamic, yet wreak havoc and devastation on innocent populations. The terror organizations forge alliances with each other as pragmatic considerations dictate, but that doesn’t mean that they all pursue the same goals by any means.

And as far as a possible narrow definition of it goes, the way I think of terrorism is the deliberate taking of innocent life in at attempt by a group or person not part of soverign state or nation in order to try to acheive a politcal or social goal that they can’t achieve through politics or military force.

That’s fine. If you want to impose a nongovernmental restriction upon the definition you use in your argument, it’s legitimate to ask others to address your points with that in mind. It’s a good idea to state that right up front, though, so that the parameters of the debate are clear. It’s also legitimate for others to point out that state-sanctioned terrorism kills innocent people just as dead, and that to the victims of terrorism, it’s pretty much irrelevant whether they suffered and died so that a pack of thugs could overthrow a government or keep it in power.

[Starving_Artist]

@Zoe

I think that Larry Mudd did a particularly good job of supporting his view that Muslims are not the overwhelming majority of terrorists. Did you not read his comments about the last 100 reported terroristic bombings?

How can I put this so you can understand it?

Terrorist group A has 100 members and has commited 7 bombings.
Terrorist group B has 1000 members and has commited 5 bombings (so far, and undoubtedly with many more in the works).

Does that mean that terrorist group A contains the most terrorists?

My position (secondary though it is) is that person for person, Muslim extremists far outnumber all others.

I don’t see what is so hard to understand about this, and contrary to its having been refuted, I have seen zero attempts to even address it. Zero!

@Zoe

Do you not understand that in the United States you are more likely to hear about Muslim terrorists and that that is not representative of what is happening in the world at large – even as reported by our own State Department? (Outside of Israel and India in 2002 it stood at 53%)

First of all, I’d point out that even if it were *only * 53%, that would still make it by far the most active and prolific source of terrorist attacks.

Secondly, why are we omitting Israel and India? Why in one of the other posts were we omitting attacks by “Iraqi insurgents?” Are not many of these Muslim fundamentalists that have come to Iraq to fight against us?

Thirdly, the State Department report you are quoting covered the year 2002. What about 2003? I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find that activity and membership among Muslim extremists involved in terrorism had grown immensely during the last 15 months.

@Zoe

Look at reliable and reputable outside sources for information.

An excellent suggestion, and although when I made my original post to this thread I didn’t anticipate anywhere near this much involvement in it, I will do so.

As to Larry Mudd’s Google search, I haven’t said much about it because I hardly think it’s an accurate way of assessing whether or not my point is correct. Again, the number of bombings and who commited them is not a measure of number of terrorists working to cause damage.

@Zoe

May I remind you of what another well-respected poster to this thread said:

He is indeed a well-respected poster on these boards. But his claim that my position has been refuted is based on the same data I just addressed. I reject it for that reason. Again, the number of bombings does not equate with the number of terrorists (and of course, the more terrorists, the greater the danger of eventual attack).

@Zoe

Are you really going to be one of those people who doesn’t want to be confused with the facts?

Nope. Are you?

@Zoe

At first it was “freedom and tolerance crowd.” You admitted they were individuals. Then the description became*“freedom and tolerance” bigots* – which is an oxymoron.

:rolleyes: I can’t believe this! I really get tired of having to point out to people their own words. You were the one that said: “The ‘freedom and tolerance crowd’ is made up of individuals. Some are just as hateful and spiteful on any given day as anybody else.” When I said “freedom and tolerance” bigots, I was speaking of the very same people that you were.

@Zoe

Since you have put the words freedom and tolerance in quotation marks, I’m not sure what you are saying. Will you clarify, please.

Here we go again! You were the one who originally put freedom and tolerance in quotes. I don’t have the post # available as I write this, but you posted it at 7:05. Please reread it.

@Zoe

And tell us why they are deserving of “scathing condemnation.”

I mentioned in a previous post that I have seen as much hatred, venom and bigotry on this site (note the word “site,” not just this thread or this forum but the site as a whole)as I’ve seen anywhere, only that instead of it being directed toward homosexuals, blacks, women, etc., it is directed toward Republicans, Christians, the Bible Belt, the South, etc. It was this comment I thought you were responding to when you said: “The ‘freedom and tolerance crowd’ is made up of individuals. Some are just as hateful and spiteful on any given day as anybody else.”

I have seen precious little of the scorn and outrage directed toward these posters that those of the opposing point of view come in for. (And so once again, we’re back to my observation that people act the same, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.)

[Starving_Artist]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I’d suggest starting with an examination of online sources from, say, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada – places that are basically friendly to us, yet capable of seeing things about the USA that we can’t or won’t. You might be surprised at how differently even our friends see some issues. Then go check out sources like Al-Jazeera. ACK! – Yes, I mean it, and French and German outlets, and whatever else you can dig up. They’ll all have English-language versions online. Be prepared to be infuriated – but also be prepared to ask yourself what legitimate grievances, modern and historical, underlie the viewpoints you’ll read.

(Study the 19th and 20th century history of Iran, and it will be abundantly clear why.)

It’s nice to know someone on this board who has earned my respect and that I think highly enough of to take their advice to heart. I will do so. However, in good conscience I have to say that I am very unlikely to have any sympathy for the plight of those who would deliberately take innocent lives in the hope of improving their own lives, or to address past or current wrongs.

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I posit this: no one group IS predominant. You can’t even lump all Muslim terrorists together, as others in this thread have pointed out – they have differing motives and goals.

It is true that they have different motives and goals, but they still spring from Islamic ideology. (And please remember…I’m not anti-Muslim, but I do wonder why such a comparitively large number of Muslims embrace terrorism, hence much of the discussion on this thread.)

@EddyTeddyFreddy

If you want to impose a nongovernmental restriction upon the definition you use in your argument, it’s legitimate to ask others to address your points with that in mind. It’s a good idea to state that right up front, though, so that the parameters of the debate are clear.

Your point is well taken. I was reluctant at first to define what I meant because I didn’t want to invite a lot of discussion on the acts of this country or that, however the thread eventually progressed to the point where I felt it appropriate to do so.

@EddyTeddyFreddy

It’s also legitimate for others to point out that state-sanctioned terrorism kills innocent people just as dead, and that to the victims of terrorism, it’s pretty much irrelevant whether they suffered and died so that a pack of thugs could overthrow a government or keep it in power.

State-sanctioned terrorism is outside the OP and my original post. If someone wants to discuss state-sanctioned or state-sponsored terrorism, perhaps that would be a good subject for another thread, but not as a way to refute or obfuscate points I make which they disagree with. I thought it apparent from the OP and my original posts that I was talking about independent, non-state-sanctioned terrorists, but maybe not. Perhaps it only seemed that way to me because I already knew what I was thinking, but I would be more inclined to think it was an attempt at deflection.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Starving Artist

I see you are misremembering what I said so as to further bolster your scorn of my position. I did not say “American” way of life." I said “Western” way of life.

My scorn of your position has nothing to do with just fine distinctions-- you suggested that terrorism occurs because “Islamic fundamentalists hate our way of life. They want to keep their women covered up so no other men will hit on them; they want to keep their women uneducated so they can have power over them; they abhor everything about Western culture – the clothing, the cars, the houses, the dancing, the partying, the money, the freedom! Freedom isn’t allowed in their way of life and they are scared to death that Western influence will spell the end of it.”. You might as quibble that “I didn’t say Islamic Fundamentalists hate ice cream, I said strawberries and cream.” It’s just as irrelevant.

@Starving Artist

As to Larry Mudd’s Google search, I haven’t said much about it because I hardly think it’s an accurate way of assessing whether or not my point is correct. Again, the number of bombings and who commited them is not a measure of number of terrorists working to cause damage.

You weren’t asking about the number of terrorists “working to cause damage.” I was responding directly to your claim that:

@Starving Artist

Out of the last 100 terrorist attacks and bombings that have been publicized (and how else am I to know of them if not in the media?), how many of them have been attacks by Muslim extremists? Well over 90, I’ll wager.

Remember? When that is shown to be false on the face of it, you shift your terms to something more intangible. How exactly do you measure the “number of terrorists working to cause damage,” if you rule out a simple assessment of the damage that they cause? What is this, some sort of obscure variation of a lightbulb-changing joke?

A claim that there are more invisible Islamic terrorists is than those of other flavours will take a little longer to refute. First we have to determine what makes someone a terrorist, short of committing terrorist acts. Affiliation with a group that is associated with terrorist acts? We’ll have to get estimates of memberships of these groups. Okay… let’s start with the Oklahoma bombing. Who gets the credit for that, the Michigan Militia, or the National Alliance? Both? Well, let’s pick the median between 2,000 and 12,000 then.

Actually, just for giggles, why don’t you do the digging, and tell us how you’ve come to the conclusion that there are more Muslim terrorists, on balance, instead of just trying to bluff your way through again? Won’t that be fun?

@Starving Artist

First of all, I’d point out that even if [the terrorist incidents attributed to “Muslim” perpetrators] were only 53%, that would still make it by far the most active and prolific source of terrorist attacks.

Yes, but hardly surprising since about a quarter of the world population is Muslim, and there is terrible political instability in parts of the world which are incidentally, Islamic. The overwhelming number of AIDS patients right now have brown skin. It does not follow that “something about that particular skin colour” makes them prone to immunodeficiency diseases.

@Starving Artist

Why in one of the other posts were we omitting attacks by “Iraqi insurgents?” Are not many of these Muslim fundamentalists that have come to Iraq to fight against us?

We weren’t, remember? For review:

I’m not sure that the Iraq bombings really qualify as Muslim Terrorism – it could just as easily be described as asymmetric warfare, but it seems best to leave it in. Looking at it that way, we have 10 “Muslim” bombings – Less than 50%

Of course, many people would take exception to calling attacks against occupying forces “terrorism,” and would instead categorize it as “asymmetrical” or “guerrilla” warfare (do you even understand what the word “insurgent” means?) which is why I included the alternate interpretation:

If we get all crazy and leave Iraqi insurgents out of it, then we have three, or possibly four out of fifteen reported incidents perpetrated by Muslims.

Either way, 90% is an indefensible claim.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Starving Artist

I have to say that I am very unlikely to have any sympathy for the plight of those who would deliberately take innocent lives in the hope of improving their own lives, or to address past or current wrongs.

I can understand that, and basically agree with the sentiment in the abstract. But then what are we to think of, say, Israel? For a large part of its existence since its founding, its government was led by people who had been involved in terrorist activities against the British before statehood was achieved. Should they be forever shunned and condemned? Or does success turn terrorists into patriots? And whose perspective on that question is more legitimate? If Yasser Arafat had actually turned his power toward building a peaceful, productive Palestinian state instead of winking at terrorism while he and his cronies looted the aid funds, would he leave behind the terrorist label and be hailed by history as a statesman? I have no answers; only questions that I hope will get you thinking beyond the immediate horror at the acts, and examining the actors to understand what motivates them. Even when one disagrees vehemently with their worldview, one needs to understand it in order to mount effective countermeasures.

We consider the Founding Fathers of this country heroes and patriots; but if the British had won the Revolutionary War, they’d have gone down in the victor-written history as rebels and traitors. What insurgencies today are spawning terrorists whom the future will regard as patriots? Noble ends don’t justify horrific means; yes, I believe that. But others on this sorry globe may feel they don’t have that luxury.

It is true that they have different motives and goals, but they still spring from Islamic ideology. (And please remember…I’m not anti-Muslim, but I do wonder why such a comparitively large number of Muslims embrace terrorism, hence much of the discussion on this thread.)

Here’s a thought: Maybe it’s not so much that the Muslim religion itself creates a terror-prone mindset. Maybe what you perceive as a disproportionate number of Muslim individuals engaged in terrorism is the result of these factors: (a) Islam is the second-largest religion in the world in terms of numbers of adherents (cite). (b) A disproportionate number of Muslims live in countries suffering poverty, repressive governments, and other conditions that breed discontent and fervor for change, no matter how achieved. One could then accept your premise that terrorists are Muslim out of proportion to the percentage of Muslims in the world’s population, yet argue that the impetus for that is secular rather than religious. Islam is a long way from being the only faith that’s been used as an excuse for power-grabbing violence.

Your point is well taken. I was reluctant at first to define what I meant because I didn’t want to invite a lot of discussion on the acts of this country or that, however the thread eventually progressed to the point where I felt it appropriate to do so.

On a topic as complex as this, it’s better to get your definitions laid down from the get-go, if you want to focus the discussion.

I thought it apparent from the OP and my original posts that I was talking about independent, non-state-sanctioned terrorists, but maybe not. Perhaps it only seemed that way to me because I already knew what I was thinking, but I would be more inclined to think it was an attempt at deflection.

Go with that first alternative, my friend. Our arguments are always so much clearer in our own minds than they are to our audience!

[Zoe]

Starving ArtistHow can I put this so you can understand it?

Terrorist group A has 100 members and has commited 7 bombings.
Terrorist group B has 1000 members and has commited 5 bombings (so far, and undoubtedly with many more in the works).

But you have not given any evidence that these groups exit in the way that you have described them. You are dealing with hypotheticals in opposition to factual information. I remain open to factual information that you might present from reliable sources.

I don’t see what is so hard to understand about this, and contrary to its having been refuted, I have seen zero attempts to even address it. Zero!

The only way to address your hypothetical is with another baseless hypothetical:

Terrorist group A has 100 members and has committed no bombings.
Terrorist group B has 1000 members and has committed 2000 bombings.
I have not even seen any attempts by you to address your own hypotheticals and opinions with data!

…The State Department report you are quoting covered the year 2002. What about 2003? I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find that activity and membership among Muslim extremists involved in terrorism had grown immensely during the last 15 months.

It takes a while for the State Department to compile these statistics for the previous year. If you are interested in seeing if the 2003 statistics are available and support your new claim that terrorism has grown “immensely” during the last 15 months, why not check out their website?

Again, the number of bombings does not equate with the number of terrorists (and of course, the more terrorists, the greater the danger of eventual attack).

Frankly, I’m more frightened by the number of attacks – most often in the form of bombings – than I am the number of terrorists.

Zoe:

Originally Posted by Zoe
Are you really going to be one of those people who doesn’t want to be confused with the facts?

Starving ArtistNope. Are you?

Give us some facts instead of opinions and hypotheticals and we’ll find out. Meanwhile, you have virtually ignored our information about the terrorists in other parts of the globe.

At least I pay attention to new sources other than those within the U.S. I don’t just go with hunches or feelings or a narrow focus.

I can’t believe this! I really get tired of having to point out to people their own words. You were the one that said: “The ‘freedom and tolerance crowd’ is made up of individuals. Some are just as hateful and spiteful on any given day as anybody else.” When I said “freedom and tolerance” bigots, I was speaking of the very same people that you were.

No you weren’t! I was speaking about me – and individual – when I’m in a grumpy mood! And other individuals who are daily in the process of being human. I am not talking about a bigot or a group of bigots! Labels! Labels! Labels!

Originally Posted by Zoe
Since you have put the words freedom and tolerance in quotation marks, I’m not sure what you are saying. Will you clarify, please.
Here we go again! You were the one who originally put freedom and tolerance in quotes. I don’t have the post # available as I write this, but you posted it at 7:05. Please reread it.

You are mistaken. The placement and use of the quotation marks and its implications makes a difference. When I used the quotation marks, it was to quote what you said: “freedom and tolerance crowd.” What I wrote was that the “freedom and tolerance crowd” is made up of individuals. When you responded, you had moved the quotation mark to the end of the world tolerance: “freedom and tolerance” bigots – which implied that they weren’t really interested in freedom and tolerance at all. (It would be a little like a newspaper printing that they saw you leaving a hotel with your “wife.” The implication would be that she wasn’t really your wife.

At any rate, I understand now that that is not what you were implying by your use of the quotation marks.

I see scorn directed a both ends of the political spectrum at this site, yes. It is my observation that scorn from the political left is directed more toward supporters of the Bush Administration at the moment – and not Republicans in general. There is scorn for the Christian right that comes from the left, I think. But I don’t see scorn for Christians in general coming from the left. I suspect (but don’t have hard data to back it up) that a majority of the Democrats in the United States are Christian themselves. I do continue to see a proliferation of ignorance about the South, but it doesn’t seem to be limited to one particular party.

I don’t think there is any doubt that SDMB is more liberal than the population of the United States in general. That doesn’t translate to bigotry.

[Zoe]

(Aside)

EddyTeddyFreddy, I want to be you when I grow up. Unfortunately, since I am older than you, I will have to wait until my next life.

No, wait…that won’t work either.

[Starving_Artist]

I just ordered a gross of straight razors to use in the hair-splitting contest you’re trying to engage me in.

Let’s just cut to the chase here, okay? My position is that:

A. Muslim terrorists vastly outnumber all other terrorists and they pose the greatest threat to the citizens of this country.

B. People who are suspicious or fearful of Muslims and/or Islam are not necessarily being ignorant or prejudiced given the fact that Islamic terrorists are attacking and killing people all over the globe and for a wide variety of reasons.

C. I’m wondering what it is about Islam that has created this situation.

Okay? This is the position I had coming into this thread and it’s the one I continue to espouse.

Any comments?

[Starving_Artist]

My previous post was intended for Larry Mudd. At the time i began it the posts from Zoe and EddyTeddyFreddy had not yet been posted. I have to leave for the time being but I will address these posts when I return.

And EddyTeddyFreddy, I am in agreement with Zoe on one thing. I, too, would hope to be like you when I grow up.

[Larry_Mudd]

@Starving Artist

Let’s just cut to the chase here, okay? My position is that:

A. Muslim terrorists vastly outnumber all other terrorists and they pose the greatest threat to the citizens of this country.

B. People who are suspicious or fearful of Muslims and/or Islam are not necessarily being ignorant or prejudiced given the fact that Islamic terrorists are attacking and killing people all over the globe and for a wide variety of reasons.

C. I’m wondering what it is about Islam that has created this situation.

Okay? This is the position I had coming into this thread and it’s the one I continue to espouse.

Argh! Yes.

Here is the problem: You have absolutely no concept of how to frame a logical argument. [list=a][]is a false premise, which has been repeatedly refuted in this thread.[]is a fallacy of composition. is including your conclusion as a premise.[/list]If you want to argue that there is something about Islam that creates a higher incidence of terrorism, go ahead.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

“Any comments”? Hoo boy, he takes a licking and keeps on ticking!

Now, seriously, at this point it might be a good idea to step back from this thread and go do some heavy reading in both current events and history, especially of colonialism in the Third World, or the Middle East, and from a variety of viewpoints. Someone, help me – what’s the recently published book by a Muslim woman addressing the failures of Islam to cope with the modern world, and why? ACK! – brain shutdown! Or, check out this article from the New York Times about the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1953. Rather an eye-opener, isn’t it? Now does it make more sense that many in the Muslim world hate and fear us, or at least our government? Dig, dig, dig; ponder, ponder, ponder – there’s tons of stuff to investigate, and you need to develop an eye for the bias that infects ALL history and analysis. Be most wary of sources and arguments that support your preconceptions. It’s so easy and tempting to slide uncritically down the slant you prefer.

And don’t forget those foreign news media I suggested! [nag, nag, nag]

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Zoe

EddyTeddyFreddy, I want to be you when I grow up. Unfortunately, since I am older than you, I will have to wait until my next life.

No, wait…that won’t work either.

Unless you wander over to MPSIMS and kill me off in “Predict the Death of the Previous Poster”.

[Zoe]

ETF – Done!

(But I seem to have intruded into some nightmarish story there. Something involving thwacking cats and such.)

[/aside]

[Yookeroo]

@Starving Artist

I just ordered a gross of straight razors to use in the hair-splitting contest you’re trying to engage me in.

@Starving Artist

I see you are misremembering what I said so as to further bolster your scorn of my position. I did not say “American” way of life." I said “Western” way of life. This would include France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, etc.

Hypocritical much?

[Monocracy]

@Starving Artist

A. Muslim terrorists vastly outnumber all other terrorists and they pose the greatest threat to the citizens of this country.

The second part of your statement may be correct, but your first is wrong and has been proven wrong throughout this thread, but you still cling to it. Your whole argument to the proof seems to be “i’m not talking about terrorist attacks, i’m talking about the actual number of terrorists”. Don’t you think that terrorist attacks are proportional to the number of terrorists? If not, why do you think that a Muslim terrorist is less likely to commit a terrorist act than a non-Muslim terrorist?

There is one possible explanation. Perhaps terrorist acts commited by Muslims are more complex and take more manpower for planning and execution than non-Muslim acts. But until i see some kind of proof of that, your statement is just dead wrong.

C. I’m wondering what it is about Islam that has created this situation.

Why do you automatically assume that it is Islam that is the cause of this? You don’t even know why, but you know that Islam is causing it? If this is not prejudiced, i don’t know what is.

As for my own personal theory on Muslim terrorism and terrorism in general … People do not like to be controlled or unwillingly influenced by foreign cultures. Much of the Muslim region is rich in natural resources, which attracts foreigners. So when foreigners meddle in their affairs (example, Operation Desert Storm/Shield), they get pissed off, which creates a general resentment from the people, some of them who are extremisists, who may become terrorists.

B. People who are suspicious or fearful of Muslims and/or Islam are not necessarily being ignorant or prejudiced given the fact that Islamic terrorists are attacking and killing people all over the globe and for a wide variety of reasons.

And yet your arguments are both ignorant and prejudiced, so this statement holds no water, either.

@Zoe

Honest to goodness, Mono, we have never had a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry here in the South.

I didn’t mean to disparage other parts of the country, or infer that Massachusetts has fewer bigots and idiots than the South. I was just amazed that someone with such an extreme neo-conservative and outspoken philosophy could have a successful radio program with so many listeners that agree with everything he says, in such a liberal state. But now that i think about it, i can think of many reasons, but i don’t want to hijack my own thread.

By the way, does anyone know the answer to a question i asked in my OP? Are both of the DC Snipers Muslim, or just the one?

[gobear]

Someone, help me – what’s the recently published book by a Muslim woman addressing the failures of Islam to cope with the modern world, and why?

The Trouble with Islam, by Irshad Manji, a gay feminist Muslim. I found the book to be most enlightening.

[Avenger]

Terrorist group A has 100 members and has commited 7 bombings. Terrorist group B has 1000 members and has commited 5 bombings (so far, and undoubtedly with many more in the works).Does that mean that terrorist group A contains the most terrorists?

What definition of ‘terrorist’ are you using exactly?

‘Terrorist Group A’ would appear to have a maximum of 7 ‘terrorists’ in it, how are the other 93 qualifying as ‘terrorists’ if they haven’t committed any acts of terror?

[cowgirl]

Reading suggestion for debunking “They hate us for our freedoms!” : Covering Islam by Edward Said.

From the linked review:

The book has three main sections: Islam as News, which considers how the Middle East is largely unknown to Americans, except as it is related to “newsworthy issues” such as oil or “terrorism.” … They are represented either “as oil suppliers or as potential terrorists.” This section also examines how “newsworthy issues” are determined largely by very particularistic groups and interests – e.g. energy corporations, Zionists, etc. – rather than by American national interests. Next comes The Iran Story, addressing the West’s response to the Iranian Revolution and the overthrow of Shahanshah Pahlavi; finally there is Knowledge and Power, which considers how easily Western “science” – the “cool, relatively detached instruments of scientific, quasi-objective representation” – can be employed to misrepresent a “distant and alien society” such as Islam.

Sorry for the hijack: Siege, could you be referring to the Air India bombing?

Globe and Mail 08/04/1986

LONDON (Staff-Special) - One of the worst aviation disasters in history killed 329 people - about 280 of them Canadians - as an Air India Boeing 747 jetliner crashed into the North Atlantic off Ireland yesterday.

The trial is going on now: it appears that some Sikhs were responsible.