Islam - How Awful Is It?

[Jason]

Also I wrote this:

If you would deign to read the paper (https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files ... ndIraq.pdf) you'll find that the author's do not diminish the reality of this threat, and in fact suggest it may become even larger and go on to suggest that a much stronger response is required.

[pErvinalia]

What fucking basics??? Are you not capable of reading what I write? I addressed your fucking point.

YOU quoted the NPR article that has 33+ per year.

I don't know why I keep expecting any different, but again, it's YOUR claim. What numbers do you claim leave the US for jihad? This is the last time I'll be asking. After that, I'm taking pity on you and leaving you alone. There's something decidedly not right at your end of the internet.

What the fuck man? Those aren't the absolute numbers! Read the goddamn paper. Those are the number of people exposed by the 64 returning terrorist they caught, and only those that are/were Salafi Jihadists and who went to Iraq/Syria from 2014 onward.

Again, it does not claim to represent the entirety of the number of American Muslims who have travelled abroad to engage in terrorist activities.

You can't even interpret your own fucking link. It was explicitly from 1980 to 2011.

As I said.. basics.

edit: I see you didn't quote the NPR article. YOu quoted something, not sure what, but I was directly responding to your quote of 1000+ jihadists from 1980-2011

[pErvinalia]

I'm definitely done now. This is fucking too weird.

[Jason]

I'm done too. You're just spouting nonsense.

[pErvinalia]

Spouting nonsense? I'm quoting YOUR OWN quotes back at you.

[Jason]

You're quite mad you know.

[Hermit]

The percentage? Are you serious?

Of course he's serious. You made a ridiculously hyperbolic claim...

Śiva wrote "...often young American (and Canadian) Muslims are radicalized and travel to conflict zones to slay infidels in the name of their religion." That's not hyperbolic. Not if you define 300 out of 3 million, or 0.0001% as 'often'.

Oh yeah. NPR - that's a reliable source.

The NPR's article sourced its information from the same report by George Washington University's Program on Extremism you claim to be familiar with. On page 12 it refers to "250 to 300 American jihadist recruits", 64 of which are studied in greater detail.

Moving right along,

From the paper:

The estimated number of foreign volunteers from Europe ranges from 5,000 to 6,000, most of them from France, Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom, while U.S. officials speak of several hundred

From Pew Research:



So, 'often' in the context you're using the word, is 1 out of 4295 Muslims in Europe and 1 out of 10,000 in the US.

[pErvinalia]

You're quite mad you know.

Dude, I'm literally only relying on your own quotes. What planet are you currently on?

[Jason]

Wonderful. Perhaps I should have worded it as "too frequently" instead of "often."

Thanks for the notes. Any chance you actually engage the points I raised?

[Jason]

You're quite mad you know.

Dude, I'm literally only relying on your own quotes. What planet are you currently on?

OK rEv, I've had it with your nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list. Population: you

[pErvinalia]

So, 'often' in the context you're using the word, is 1 out of 4295 Muslims in Europe and 1 out of 10,000 in the US.

C'mon man, that's just a "technicality". We can't take a person's words at face value. That would be irrational or something...

[pErvinalia]

You're quite mad you know.

Dude, I'm literally only relying on your own quotes. What planet are you currently on?

OK rEv, I've had it with your nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list. Population: you

Someone call the waambulance! What a fucking snowflake.

[Hermit]

Wonderful. Perhaps I should have worded it as "too frequently" instead of "often."

That I can agree with, but one in a million would be "too frequently" as well, so the new wording diminishes the alarm quotient of your statement. That's not the effect you are after, is it?

Any chance you actually engage the points I raised?

Well, I did address one of them. As for any others, I would if I could, but they are spread among the flame war between you and rEv, and I am not going to comb through all those posts to find them again. Could you repeat them please, perhaps in a bulleted list?

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

So, 'often' in the context you're using the word, is 1 out of 4295 Muslims in Europe and 1 out of 10,000 in the US.

Siva, your only response to this detailed and factual statement is to say that is still "too frequent". Well, I suppose in an ideal world, 0 would be a better figure. All the other stuff you said about them a while back may be true, in the sense that anyone with any sense will recognise the radicalised young muslims as a real danger. I doubt anyone here would disagree, but what implications do you draw from that? That muslims are all bad, and that the west should go all pogrom on their arse?

The boring, pragmatic reality is that these relatively small number of people are, in the vast majority of cases, being successfully contained by intelligence and police agencies, and that they receive (quite rightly) harsh penalties when they are proved to be planning terrorist attacks, or assisting others.

[pErvinalia]

Wonderful. Perhaps I should have worded it as "too frequently" instead of "often."

That I can agree with, but one in a million would be "too frequently" as well, so the new wording diminishes the alarm quotient of your statement. That's not the effect you are after, is it?

Exactly. Hammer -> Nail head. Siva's point is to paint mainstream Muslims as some sort of violent threat to the rest of us.