In the US from 90s onward, how may Muslims have committed terrorism vs served in military or police

I read 6000 Muslims have served in the military since 9/11, probably more.

I know Muslims make up a large percentage of terrorist acts, but I’m curious what the ratio of Muslim soldiers and cops is to terrorists in the US. I’d guess 100:1 or so.

Meaning, since the 90s have about 50 Muslims engaged in terrorism against the US compared to maybe 7000 Muslims who became cops and soldiers?

I need the information for a debate on another board.


If you look at the Wiki page on terrorism in the U.S., it shows about 60 terrorist attacks of all kinds since 1990. At least a dozen of them are attributed to white supremacists, abortion clinic attacks, etc., and a handful of attacks that are unsolved.

That leaves fewer than 50 attacks connected to Islam since 1990. I’m not going to count up the number of people involved, but I’d guess it’s safe to say 50-100, and no more.

This article say there are more than 700 Muslims in the NYPD alone.

Here is aclearly biased list of “Muslim terrorist attacks” in the us. It probably represents an over estimation since it for example includes honor killings as terrorist attacks, and all of the DC sniper attacks are counted as separate incidents, but it gives an upper limit that is probably in the 50-100 range propose by kunilou.

There are5,896 Muslims serving in the Military,

Given that about 6% of New York city is Muslim as compared to 1% of the total US, and given that the New York has 8.4 Millio people
vs 318 million in the US, this works out to over 4,400 Muslims working for the police.

So a ratio of somewhere around 100-300 to 1 seems reasonable.

Even if it was so, so what? Child pornography is a significant issue, i.e. relatively prevalent in the military. Does that excuse child molesters because they serve their country?

I’m not equating Muslims with child molesters or criminals. I’m pointing out that if you are having a debate with someone already predisposed to view Muslims as terrorists, this argument won’t hold water.

Nobody is suggesting we create excuses for the Muslims who are terrorists. Or child molesters.

But it’s wrong to see every Muslim as a terrorist-in-waiting, which is what a lot of right wingers are doing now.

The Detroit area has a large Islamic community so you’d probably find a lot of Muslims in the Detroit PD. (Along with the cyborgs.)

I’m looking at that Wikipedia article … seems there tons and bunches more Christian terrorist attacks than Islamic … it’s sad to see so many gynocologists murdered this way.


The lists of terrorists include those who came to the US to commit acts of terrorism. How many Muslims instead chose to join the military forces of their home countries and fight as part of the US-led coalition in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or work for the US government as informants, guides, etc?

Child pornography is prevelant in the military?? Cite?

What Muslim terrorism?

The WTC attacks were committed by Saudi “visitors”; the planned millennial bombing of LAX was again, a visitor.
Only the earlier relatively impotent bombing was done by US residents.

99% of the “terrorist plots” foiled by the FBI were instigated and egged on by the FBI or their paid informants, and should be classified as entrapment. (The real one they missed - the Boston Bombing - they were warned about the perps by the Russians and chose to ignore the warning).

Florida - a guy attacks the gay bar he’s gone to for 3 years; sounds more like a crazy person going postal and some serious self-loathing, not your classic Muslim terrorism. San Bernardino - a guy goes postal on his workplace, uses foreign terrorists as an excuse. After a big to-do about needing to decode the phone - after the authorities screwed up and let it lock - still shows no connection to real terrorists. Fort Hood was another case of someone going postal; Fort Hood is suspicious, but still can be classified as a guy going postal against his co-workers and superiors.

Muslim religion has about as much to do with middle east terrorism as Catholic religion has to do with IRA terrorism. It’s ethnic strife with a sectarian overlay, and history going back 1000 years to the crusades. Al Qeda started as an ethnic movement to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets - financed by the USA. After the WTC, bin Laden would throw in references to the plight of the Palestinians - not because he gave a shit, but because it helped rile up Israel’s local enemies and gave al Qeda support.

The USA does not appear to have any organized “Muslim fundamentalist terrorism” in the same vein as France or Belgium, or the middle east. It’s a strawman to scare the voters.

Under some definition of “entrapment” other than the legal one?

You most certainly are equating Muslims with child molesters, in that child molesters have to do something heinous to be in the category “child molester.”

To be in the category “Muslim,” you have to join a religion. It is not incumbent upon members of that religion to do anything heinous. In other words, child molesters are by definition, bad (and criminals in the US). Not so Muslims.

Child pornography is not “prevalent” in the military, either. The military does not allow soldiers to possess anything that could possibly be construed as child pornography, and occasionally a soldier gets a photo or a picture by text of his own infant in the bath, or a niece at the swimming pool not wearing a shirt, and has if it’s discovered, is advised to get rid of it, or delete it, as it *could be considered *child pornography, because the definition is extremely strict. So stories get around that the soldier a couple of bunks down got child porn in a text.

My husband was platoon leader in Iraq, and he had to give this advice to soldiers on more than one occasion.

The problem is that having any nude picture of a child floating around, even an innocent one, like your own toddler in the big tub for the first time, which is a moment your spouse understandably wants to share, would be fodder for the one in n people who is a child molester, seeing that access to real child pornography is pretty well-restricted. And there are unscrupulous people who will say “Awww. Your son is so cute. Can you copy me that?” and then will sell it.

But there is no more a child porn “problem” in the military than there is one in the civilian world.

Two-Thirds Of Military Supreme Court Cases Are About Child Pornography. Although, as the article explains, this doesn’t necessarily indicate that child pornography is “prevalent” in the military.

Presumably, the moral definition trumps (sorry) the legal one.

Most of these terror “plots” are instigated by the FBI or their paid agents. While some people may not agree with their government or the direction of society (how many do?) sending a paid informant to egg them into illegal behaviour they would not otherwise have done is the basic definition of entrapment. In case after case, the FBI would urge a course of action, suggest targets, offer to procure weapons, provide money or other support, and then announce they’d cracked another “ring” they created.

It’s very much like the DeLorean drug case. The government argued that was not entrapment, but it was reversed up the judicial ladder because DeLorean had the money for lawyers.

This sounds a lot like most of the FBI terror cases: