Dhondy Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Terrosits have no religions That's the commonly recycled cliche, but is it really true? Most terrorists are Muslim, although very few Muslims are terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 That's the commonly recycled cliche' date=' but is it really true? Most terrorists are Muslim, although very few Muslims are terrorists.[/quote'] Bade bhai we know that but I am trying to make case on the official line of govt. And they say terrosits have no religion I say fine I agree. But can we for once treat them as if they had no religion or we will keep treatign them as muslim all the while chanting terrorists have no religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Doc' date=' Shall we put that through Okhams (sp?) razor ? or you think that will spook the guts out of those that run this place :--D[/quote'] I can do better than that, pardner. Here are some stats for your scrutiny: In 2007, a total of 72,066 civilians were targeted in attacks worldwide, with 22,685 deaths. In 2006, 75,211 civilians were targeted in attacks, resulting in 20,872 deaths. But here is the stunner. Muslims bore the substantial share of being victims of terrorist attacks in 2007, with as many as 50 percent of the total number of civilians killed or injured by terrorists in 2007. Say there are a billion Muslims in the world out of a population of 6 billion. With the above stats, you are five times likely to die of terrorism if you were a Muslim than if you belonged to another faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I can do better than that, pardner. Here are some stats for your scrutiny: In 2007, a total of 72,066 civilians were targeted in attacks worldwide, with 22,685 deaths. In 2006, 75,211 civilians were targeted in attacks, resulting in 20,872 deaths. But here is the stunner. Muslims bore the substantial share of being victims of terrorist attacks in 2007, with as many as 50 percent of the total number of civilians killed or injured by terrorists in 2007. Say there are a billion Muslims in the world out of a population of 6 billion. With the above stats, you are five times likely to die of terrorism if you were a Muslim than if you belonged to another faith. Do the numbers include the killed terrorists as well?? If so, it explains why ROP accounts for the lions share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 I can do better than that, pardner. Here are some stats for your scrutiny: In 2007, a total of 72,066 civilians were targeted in attacks worldwide, with 22,685 deaths. In 2006, 75,211 civilians were targeted in attacks, resulting in 20,872 deaths. But here is the stunner. Muslims bore the substantial share of being victims of terrorist attacks in 2007, with as many as 50 percent of the total number of civilians killed or injured by terrorists in 2007. Say there are a billion Muslims in the world out of a population of 6 billion. With the above stats, you are five times likely to die of terrorism if you were a Muslim than if you belonged to another faith. And you are probably fifty times likely to BE a terrorist if you are a Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 And you are probably fifty times likely to BE a terrorist if you are a Muslim. Overestimate. Out of 88 terrorist attacks in 2007, Islamic terrorists accounted for 72. Given the same population distribution alluded to earlier, the relative chance of an Islamic organisation turning out to be a militant (BBC lingo) as opposed to a non-Islamic one is 4.5*5= 22.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Overestimate. Out of 88 terrorist attacks in 2007, Islamic terrorists accounted for 72. Given the same population distribution alluded to earlier, the relative chance of an Islamic organisation turning out to be a militant (BBC lingo) as opposed to a non-Islamic one is 4.5*5= 22.5.. Thats a pretty awesome stat. If it is BBC, I can probably use it next time. :two_thumbs_up: Gracias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Thats a pretty awesome stat. If it is BBC, I can probably use it next time. :two_thumbs_up: Gracias. No, no those stats are not from BBC. The casualty figures are from the US National Counter Terrorism Centre. I compiled the proportions by going through the list of terrorist strikes in 2007 on Wikepedia. The allusion to BBC is only with respect to the word "terrorist". BBC refuses to use the word and replace that with "militant" instead, although I think they did use the word during the London bombings (unconfirmed). Therefore, they have been accused of double standards. For example, after the London bombings, a Pakistani hand was hypothesised straightaway and later, the ringleaders were referred to as British born Pakistanis. Yet, after Mumbai, the British press continued to use phrases such as "Pakistani hand alleged by India" for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 No, no those stats are not from BBC. The casualty figures are from the US National Counter Terrorism Centre. I compiled the proportions by going through the list of terrorist strikes in 2007 on Wikepedia. The allusion to BBC is only with respect to the word "terrorist". BBC refuses to use the word and replace that with "militant" instead, although I think they did use the word during the London bombings (unconfirmed). Therefore, they have been accused of double standards. For example, after the London bombings, a Pakistani hand was hypothesised straightaway and later, the ringleaders were referred to as British born Pakistanis. Yet, after Mumbai, the British press continued to use phrases such as "Pakistani hand alleged by India" for a long time. You can say that again. NYTIMES was pretty pathetic during the coverage of these Mumbai events too, pointing the finger towards India's homegrown terrorists and being highly sceptical of India's claim, quoting some lady from RAND corporation. I am sure they reacted differently about the 9/11 attacks, and the irony being that those hijackers have had extnsive pilot training in the US itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharma Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Do you get a sense that you're beginning to sound/feel a lot like the terrorists themselves? Dont let anger/rage get the better of the decent man in you. dont let civility be your weakness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 You can say that again. NYTIMES was pretty pathetic during the coverage of these Mumbai events too, pointing the finger towards India's homegrown terrorists and being highly sceptical of India's claim, quoting some lady from RAND corporation. I am sure they reacted differently about the 9/11 attacks, and the irony being that those hijackers have had extnsive pilot training in the US itself. NYtimes are we talkign about sam NyTimes who flashed the picture of single boy somewhere as victimsomewhere as an emergency worker in that israel a hizbolla war......if any credibility they had it went through the window that day.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanakya Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Please understand' date=' for these brainwashed specimens, pain and death is no deterrent. In fact, its a motivation. The shockingly unrepentant manner in which these 'people' go about their business should give you enough clues that for them, mortal consideration of torture is shoe-dust.[/quote'] death is not the motivation... life after death is... lets stop that from happening and see the results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 death is not the motivation... life after death is... lets stop that from happening and see the results You are abusing a religion you extremist :--D btw good luck with getting through the obvious message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 You were talking about a community that has a extreemly long and painfull track record of having conducted some of the worst genocides ever in history. And you were arguing for the human rights of such a community without knowing crap about its origins history or other details using the classic apologists cliches and parroting stuff from "PCness for dummies". At this rate one could quite easily defend majority Nazis as they were simply not directly responsible for WWII. Need I say anything more ? But not to worry you arent alone. You got some pretty elite company. For example the proff - with whom you used to jump up and down in threads with anger when you were told that Kashmiri muslims had to be dealt with force. Remember that episode ? Let me know if you now want to know what really happened behind the scenes. As I keep saying quite easy to parrot stuff from "Political Correctness for Dummies" much harder to stand scrutiny. I still say Punish the Terrorists. But thats not what you say. You want to punish all folks from a certain religion - irrespective of whether they commit the crime or not. Just becos other folks from the religion commit the crime, lets punish the whole enchilada? Right? Wrong. Example: Crime is done by 30 out of 100 people. The rest 70 lead a crime free life. but becos the 70 "dont protest" against the 30 - you want to punish all 100 instead of punishing the 30. How would that ever happen? That wont fly. Not protesting is not a crime. Actively abetting or doing the crime is punishable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Fineleg you need to read Swami Dayanad Saraswati Satyarth Prakash.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I still say Punish the Terrorists. But thats not what you say. You want to punish all folks from a certain religion - irrespective of whether they commit the crime or not. Just becos other folks from the religion commit the crime, lets punish the whole enchilada? Right? Wrong. Example: Crime is done by 30 out of 100 people. The rest 70 lead a crime free life. but becos the 70 "dont protest" against the 30 - you want to punish all 100 instead of punishing the 30. How would that ever happen? That wont fly. Not protesting is not a crime. Actively abetting or doing the crime is punishable. certain can only be committed by whole community and driving oout kashmiri pandits fall in that category no one or two person can drive out whole community each and every of the community had to be party to that crime.. Omar Abdullah at least had the gumption to accept that......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 ^ what about his (dayananda) sayings are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 If they are in the majority why are they living happily with the scumbags over there ? You never had a straight answer to this question. Because they live happily or otherwise, how is it a crime? I'm sure you know some Pak folks who are normal folks - who studied, have a degree and are working. They are not doing anything to aid the crime. Just coz they dont protest, or "live somewhere" - you cannot call it a crime? can you? The scumbags are the crime, not the others. Do you see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I think its already been made clear to keep religion out of these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Maulana Abdul Satrraa Hmdani held for suspicion of providing logistical suppport .. he is a muslim leader from porbander.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts