Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

On another thread, I agreed to shafique's challenge of comparing the number of converts to Islam who engage in terrorism with the number of converts to all other religions who have engaged or planned terrorist attacks.

I am more than happy to compare the number of terrorist attacks (thwarted ones included) of Muslim converts with the number of terror attacks (thwarted ones included) by converts to other faiths and then draw any conclusions from these numbers.

Since I am not aware of even a single convert to a religion other than Islam who has engaged in terrorism or become a religious zealot, I guess I'll start with Muslim converts:

Here are some converted Muslim extremists who've made the headlines in the last eight years or so:

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who shot up a recruiting center a few months ago
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524799,00.html

Shane Kent who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges after admitting to authorities that his terror cell (of six other Muslims) were plotting to blow up a stadium full of spectators. Just like the Mumbai hotel attackers, Kent wanted to kill thousands of non Muslims.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... arges.html

Germaine Maurice Lindsay was one of the four suicide bombers that targeted Britain's transport systems on the July 7th, 2005. His bombing killed twenty six unbelievers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Lindsay

Isa Ibrahim, a young converted Muslim extremist who is on trial for making a suicide bomb vest with intent to use it. To Isa's defense, he never intended use the explosives he made in his flat. It's just common for youngsters these days to convert to Islam and then make their own suicide vest.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

Nicky Reilly, yet *another* Muslim convert in Britain who unsuccessfully (thankfully) set off a nail bomb in a restaurant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

Richard Reid, the infamous 'shoe bomber' who boarded a plane shortly after the 9/11 jihad attacks and tried to set off his C-4 laden shoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

Muriel Degauque, a female suicide bomber who, with her Muslim husband, joined al-Qaeda in Iraq, after her would be suicide bomber husband was shot dead in Iraq. She blew herself up but caused no fatalities other than her own.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 598536.ece

DC snipers Malvo and Muhammad managed to murder eleven and injure three others during their weeks long terror campaign. (I guess you could say they 'struck terror into the hearts of unbelievers' - kudos to anyone who can guess which book of 'peace' that quote came from)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Daniel Patrick Boyd, a ringleader of a North Carolina jihadist group calling themselves "the swords of God" (must be amish since they don't believe in modern weapons such as guns and bombs [ It's interesting to note that Muhammad gave the same moniker to Khaleed ibn Waleed, who later massacred tens of thousands of captured Persian soldiers by cutting their throats at the infamous battle of Blood Canal]). Apparently Daniel liked to keep it in the family and his own sons, Muhammad and Zakaria, were also members of the group.

An interesting snippet from the article:

The group held fast to the belief that “fard ayn” or that violent jihad is the responsibility and requirement of every good Muslim.

Gee, I wonder where they would have gotten that idea from?

http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Head ... viv-Israel

Adam Yahiye Gadahn, American convert and English interpreter for al Qaeda. He is the first American to be charged with treason in over fifty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn

José Padilla, converted to Islam in prison (hardened criminal attracted to the teachings of Islam - say it isn't so). The poor guy was rounded up before he could engage in jihad and has since been tried and found guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_ ... _(prisoner)

Polish born Muslim convert, Christian Ganczarski, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the deadly Tunisian synagogue bombings that murdered 19.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/s ... ?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34554&cHash=dbb08118d8

Two German converts (and a Turk) were arrested before they could "blow up hundreds of people in German airports, discotheques and restaurants. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 390127.ece

Sonja B, a female German convert, was arrested before she could go to Iraq (with her child) and become yet another suicide bomber.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:LiN ... =firefox-a

Thanks for taking up your challenge and cutting and posting the links.

However, I asked you to specify the parameters so we could first count, classify and then compare these incidents with your premise that Islam condones/compels against violence against non-Muslims.

I wanted to see what numbers of non-Muslims were actually killed and what number of attacks actually took place - and then we could compare the numbers of other terrorist victims over that same period.

We were also going to look at ratios - look at the number of actual (or even alleged) plots by converts to Islam and divide that by the numbers converting to Islam (over the same period), and compare that with the ratios of terrorists from other faiths.

To me it appears (without doing the calculations) that Jewish Terrorists (such as Baruch Goldstein from occupied Palestine) are more violent and virulent than al-Qaeda wannabes in the west - but we can compare the relative numbers once you have completed your tally of 'actual', 'suspected' etc and divided by the numbers of converts.


Then we can also compare the numbers of people who are just anarchists (teenage or otherwise) or just criminals. [The serious point is to see whether 'Muslims' as a category has a disproportionate number of 'nutters' than other groups - eg the Tim McVeigh's of this world. The Richard Reids etc of this world are just gullible nutters and are to be found in all communities... but we can test this theory]


What your list does show though, is that the media reports about suspected 'Islamic' terrorism is rich - though in many of the cases the facts tend to expose the initial headlines as nothing more than hype - eg Ricin plots in the UK (fabrications) or entrapments by the FBI in the US. But hey - I'm happy for you to count even the ultimately false headlines in your count - can't be fairer than that! (Ultimately when we look at the numbers actually killed or maimed, the truth will be stark)

So, I await your counts of incidents, killed, maimed, suspects etc... just let me know what period you are counting over and I'll compile the comparable list of non-Muslim perpetrators of terrorist acts and their victims.

Cheers,
Shafique

We were also going to look at ratios - look at the number of actual (or even alleged) plots by converts to Islam and divide that by the numbers converting to Islam (over the same period), and compare that with the ratios of terrorists from other faiths.

Sorry, but that is not a fair comparison.

I am comparing the number of extremist Muslims who have been arrested (or blew themselves up or are still at large) for carrying or plotting/attempting to carry out violent attacks and are compelled or justify their actions from the texts and teachings of Islam with people who have *converted* to other faiths and have gone on to become zealot Hindus, Catholics, Protestant, etc.

As I said, I'm not aware of any Catholic convert who has been arrested for rigging up a car bomb or tossing a grenade into a market place.

To me it appears (without doing the calculations) that Jewish Terrorists (such as Baruch Goldstein from occupied Palestine) are more violent and virulent than al-Qaeda wannabes in the west

Strawman. Baruch Goldstein is not a convert to Judaism.

However, I asked you to specify the parameters

Sure. If they were/are devout in their faith and believed they were carrying out acts in the name of their religion or were influence by the texts and teachings of their religion, then I am more than happy to include them.

A Muslim convert who happens to one day kill the guy who cut him off on the way to work would not be included. Personally, I think this is just common sense, but perhaps what I consider to be common sense would not be common sense for you?

though in many of the cases the facts tend to expose the initial headlines as nothing more than hype

Great, which reports do you consider to be 'hype'? I suppose the DC snipers could be the only report that is in the grey. Certainly, all the other cases involve Muslim zealots who were influenced by their interpretation of Islam.

So, I await your counts of incidents, killed, maimed, suspects etc

The incidents could begin since 2001 - although I admit that this is unfair to you since most Muslim terror attacks have occurred since this 2001. I'll personally cover 2001 to 2009 and you can choose any nine year period you like.

I see no reason to not include suspects who never actually managed to kill anyone - to me, Richard Reid is just as much of a dangerous terrorist (if not more) than the 7/7 bombers. But perhaps you have a reason to limit suspects to only those that managed to inflict casualties as opposed to terrorists that were prevented from doing so.

Cool, we are making progress.

I'm ok with you choosing the parameters - so you have said you want to cover 2001 to 2009. Fair enough.

You also want to count the nutters who didn't kill anyone but just plotted to kill - also fair enough, but it would be a bit difficult for me to count the numbers of nutters of other religions who are just plotting anarchy etc... but still, it's a valid challenge.

All I ask is that the numbers are kept separate - those who actually killed/carried out attacks and those 'reported' to be terrorists. As I pointed out the 'reported/suspected' terrorists tend to turn out to be just hype in many cases (eg Ricin plots).

We should then end up with absolute numbers of converts to Islam who have committed or are accused of plotting terrorist attacks.

I'll work out the numbers of Muslim converts over the same period and will work out the ratio of 'terrorists' within the numbers of those converting... this will form one basis of comparison with the other terrorist attacks over the same period.

Let the counting begin.

(BTW - Goldstein is a terrorist, and a religiously motivated terrorist - and whilst not a convert, he was an imigrant to Palestine and carried out a heinous terrorist act whilst in army uniform, quite calmly and deliberately carried out the killings. He was/is venerated by the colonialists in Hebron and elsewhere and therefore is as dangerous - or more dangerous because they are armed by the US - than any Islamic terrorist. I view those who choose to leave the Bronx, say, and come out to occupy and terrorise Palestinian Arabs of all religions to be in the same category as 'converts' - they are leaving benign Judaism for the extremist views of the colonialists. That is why I don't think he's a strawman in this argument.)

Oh, and a final point - I am going to count anyone who becomes a 'born again Christian' as a 'convert' - they consider themselves as such, so who am I going to argue. If that person thinks God is ordering them to do things and ends up killing civilians - I think that should count. I may have trouble in counting the numbers killed though - but I'll give it a good stab (if you'll excuse the pun).

Cheers,
Shafique

(BTW - Goldstein is a terrorist, and a religiously motivated terrorist - and whilst not a convert, he was an imigrant to Palestine and carried out a heinous terrorist act whilst in army uniform, quite calmly and deliberately carried out the killings.... I view those who choose to leave the Bronx, say, and come out to occupy and terrorise Palestinian Arabs of all religions to be in the same category as 'converts'

Great, but Baruch Goldstein is still not a convert. Although I can understand your desire to want to change the definition of a person converting from one religion to another. Unfortunately, your argument is not very convincing.

I am going to count anyone who becomes a 'born again Christian' as a 'convert'

A Christian converting to Hinduism is a convert. A Hindu converting to Christianity is a convert. But, unfortunately, 'born again' Christians are not converts.

Anyways, it shouldn't be that difficult to find people who convert to religions other than Islam (including Muslims who convert to other religions) who became terrorists after their conversion, right?

Goldstein's terrorist acts took place outside your chosen period - so his killings won't count.

Look, I'll be fair to you. You are correct - it should not be difficult to find converts to other religions who committed acts of terror.

You specifically said you were unaware of Catholic converts who committed acts of terrorism. So, why don't we compare the numbers of civilians killed by Catholic converts over the period 2001 to 2009, and then check to see what proportions of Converts to Catholicism are represented by the examples I give, and compare it with the proportion of Muslim converts you can list.

I have one particular Catholic Convert in mind - he is quite well known and was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians, many more times more deaths than Bin-Laden caused (for example) - and calls have been made calling for his trial as a war-criminal.

I just need to work out a rough estimate of the numbers of Catholic converts over the period to check statistically how many times more Catholic converts become terrorists than Muslim converts - I think it is at least 10 times more likely, statistically speaking. (This is numbers of terrorists - when it comes to numbers of civilians killed, it appears that Catholic Converts kill thousands, 10s of thousands or perhaps 100's of thousands more than Muslim converts).

So, c'mon freefromrats - give us your total counts of Muslim Convert terrorists over the period and then I can compare that with Catholic Converts in the first instance (I may then move on to converts to other faiths ).

I think the Protestants shouldn't be let off the hook either - as I said before, we can also consider 'born again' Christians who think God is ordering them to go to war to be among those counted as committing acts leading to deaths of civilians (indeed terrorism by any definition) over the same period.. what do you think?

Cheers,
Shafique

he is quite well known and was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians

Really? How so? Did he order bombs to be dropped on marketplaces and mosques? Do you have actual data (not imagined) of how many people were killed under his orders? Did these events take place before or after his conversion? And, most importantly, is he considered religious fanatic (pretty self explanatory term, if you need help defining one, go ahead and ask), i.e., he is a flat footed literalist as Muslims are?

These are probably issues you need to work out before you give your example. My guess is that this individual is actually quite liberal in his religious views, but I'll wait for you to actually name this person and we can compare him with Muslim terrorist converts who actually cite the Koran and Islamic theological concepts for the motivation and justification for their actions.

I think it is at least 10 times more likely, statistically speaking.

Well, so far you've only said you had one person in mind. Not exactly original but I'll have to wait for you to find 149 or so more converts who have used the texts and teachings of their new religion as their motivation or justification for terrorism.

Christians who think God is ordering them to go to war to be among those counted as committing acts leading to deaths of civilians (indeed terrorism by any definition) over the same period.. what do you think?

I agree that the deliberate killing of civilians - such as the beheading of several hundred bound villagers, is considered terrorism.

I am not convinced that civilians that die accidentally would be counted as terrorism. Perhaps you can enlighten me on examples from historical figures who allowed for military strikes even though they knew civilians would certainly be killed...what do you think?

Also, a 'born again' is not a convert. I see myself explaining this to you again, but if you really think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq) should be considered in the tally (I don't), why didn't you say this from the beginning?

I mean, certainly al-Qaeda in Iraq has killed more Iraqis than any other group operating in Iraq, with the possible exception of Shia death squads, but that would just be overkill. Not to mention all the other born again Muslims who have followed the true teachings of their religion and become terrorists afterward.

Christians who think God is ordering them to go to war

According to Bush, he never believed that or said it. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

freefromrats wrote:

shafique wrote:I think it is at least 10 times more likely, statistically speaking.

Well, so far you've only said you had one person in mind. Not exactly original but I'll have to wait for you to find 149
...

Yes, I so far have one person in mind for the Catholic Convert responsible for killing innocent people and terrorising populations category. When I divide this one person by the number of catholic converts, we can compare that with the numpties you're counting divided by the number Muslim converts.

However, I'm still waiting for your count and breakdown of deaths etc so that we can do the comparison.

(Oh, and I can't see why I should be 'orginal' when you have been supremely unoriginal in your list! )

I guess you have guessed who my mystery Catholic Convert is

Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats wrote:Also, a 'born again' is not a convert. I see myself explaining this to you again, but if you really think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq) should be considered in the tally (I don't), why didn't you say this from the beginning?

Yes, why not - I'm happy to include all terrorists in the calculations when comparing which particular religious/ethnic/national groups kill the most civilians - perhaps another tally is called for after we've established which group of 'converts' produces more victims of terrorism.

freefromrats wrote:

Christians who think God is ordering them to go to war

According to Bush, he never believed that or said it. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Good advice - but we'd have to count Bush if 'born agains' are to be counted as converts. But as you don't want to, let's just stick with the Catholic Converts for now.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, I so far have one person in mind for the Catholic Convert responsible for killing innocent people and terrorising populations category.

I'm more than willing to read how you believe these people were killed, how many were killed (after the conversion) and were they under the direct orders of the convert? Also, did this convert seek to kill civilians or did civilians die from 'collateral damage' (kind of similar to a historical figure from the Arabian peninsula who killed civilians as a result of collateral damage).

We can also see if this convert was motivated by the texts and teachings of his religion to kill civilians and 'terrorize' populations like the extremist Muslim converts who were inspired to carry out acts of terrorism based on the teachings of Islam.

With all due respect, you are the one who raised this issue about converts killing innocents - I'm playing along with your challenge and have accepted all the parameters you've chosen - viz 2001 to 2009 and looking at converts (as opposed to 'born agains') only.

I'm waiting for your count of terrorist acts committed by Muslim converts, along with what proportion this represents - then I'll give you my figures for innocents killed by converts from other religions in the same period (starting with the requested example of a Catholic convert).

My criteria will be quite straightforward - primarily I will attribute the deaths of innocents to the convert if his/her actions led to their deaths - had they not ordered actions or carried out actions, would the innocent terror victims have been subject to the terror or not. Do you have an issue with this?

Dead civilians are dead civilians - terror victims one and all. You wanted to compare - so I await your numbers and am a bit amused that you are formulating excuses before you provide a total count for 'muslim convert terrorists and their victims'. I suspect you realise that we may find Catholic Converts have killed far more and that the perpetrators are a greater proportion of converts than your examples - but hey, let's not pre-judge - present your numbers and lets do the comparison.

Let's leave the judgement to the statistics.

Cheers,
Shafique

duplicate

Do you have an issue with this?

I have a problem with counting civilians (including the 100 plus Iraqis killed today) who are murdered by Islamic insurgents as those killed by the Americans or British.

And yes, I do see a difference between someone purposely targeting civilians as opposed to civilians that died in a firefight between soldiers and insurgents that the insurgents started.

Clearly, there are exceptions - such as using excessive force in a situation or using force at all when many would argue that there was no need to do so. But, I'm not here to defend the invasion of Iraq by the early Muslims.

so I await your numbers and am a bit amused that you are formulating excuses

I don't think I'm making any excuses. I addressed this issue when you asked what parameters should be set several posts ago:

Sure. If they were/are devout in their faith and believed they were carrying out acts in the name of their religion or were influence by the texts and teachings of their religion, then I am more than happy to include them.

A Muslim convert who happens to one day kill the guy who cut him off on the way to work would not be included. Personally, I think this is just common sense, but perhaps what I consider to be common sense would not be common sense for you?

I have a feeling that the convert you have in mind is not considered a fundamentalist/fanatic by....anyone.

I thought this is clear but, in any event, it would seem you have a lot more work ahead of you than I do. You haven't addressed your convert's date of conversion and adjusted the number of deaths that person was supposedly responsible for after he converted. That's assuming he was still rigging up car bombs and setting them off next to synagogues or financial districts after his conversion.

Anyways, I'll let you start this off since I have to find out how many people actually convert to Islam in the US and Europe annually.

I'm happy to wait for you to come up with your counts first - as you raised the issue and I merely decided to take you up on it.

I understand why you want to qualify who the victims of terrorism are and why you are balking at the simple definition of civilians being killed. However, it is a statistic that is reasonably objective and one that can be measured - and I am sure you don't have any issues with counting civilians killed by Muslim convert terrorists as 'victims of terrorism'.

As for trying to introduce a new criterion - the time period since conversion - nice try, but it is a bit late in the day to try and wriggle out of this challenge... but it is interesting to see you preparing your defense before the numbers of terror victims have been counted.

However, you do have a statistical point - we shouldn't be dividing the numbers of terrorist converts by the number of new converts between 2001 and 2009, but rather by the total number of Muslim converts alive in that time. Let's conservatively say that the number is double the number of new converts between 2001 and 2009 - fair enough? If not, I'll be happy with any other estimate you can argue for.

If you need help with estimates of Muslim converts over 2001 to 2009, let me know and I'll employ my Googling skills.

I await your figures - viz - numbers of Muslim converts who a) carried out terrorist acts, b) suspected of planning/plotting terrorist acts, c) numbers of actual victims of (a) and lastly d) the proportion that a and b represent (i.e. divide the numbers of a and b by the total number of Muslim converts )

Cheers,
Shafique

Cheers,
Shafique

As for trying to introduce a new criterion - the time period since conversion

Hmmm. That's interesting. Perhaps I can include the rapes and murders that Muslim converts committed before they converted to Islam in prison?

No? I didn't think so.

but it is interesting to see you preparing your defense before the numbers of terror victims have been counted.

As opposed to the number of extremists counted?

I await your figures - viz - numbers of Muslim converts who a) carried out terrorist acts, b) suspected of planning/plotting terrorist acts, c) numbers of actual victims of (a) and lastly d) the proportion that a and b represent (i.e. divide the numbers of a and b by the total number of Muslim converts )

Cool. I'm more than happy to supply figures for Muslim converts who became terrorists/extremists because of the texts and teachings of Islam. As far as I know, all of the jihadists I've posted believed they were engaging in the theological concept of jihad warfare. So, there should be no dispute over whether they were truly Islamic terrorists as opposed to terrorists who happened to be Muslim.

Oh, and two more additions:

Kevin James, a Muslim convert, was accused of founding a radical Islamic group called J.I.S (Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh, Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam") from his cell in Folsom Prison in California, and of recruiting fellow inmates to join his mission to kill infidels.[2]

They sound *real* secular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Los_Angeles_bomb_plot

and the four Bronx jihadists, they parked what they thought were real car bombs next to two synagogues. But hey, don't we all go through that phase in life to park car bombs next to buildings? I did it just the other day:

The men allegedly placed bombs wired to cell phones in three separate cars outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, both in the Riverdale community of Bronx. New York City Police Department commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said one of the suspects placed explosives, while the other three suspects served as lookouts.[2][9]

happens all the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Y ... and_arrest

Sorry to interrupt, this is interesting reading but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
There is fundamental difference between a terrorist who happens to be religious and one who carries out acts because of their religion.
This will make it a lot easier for you to tally up the numbers.

It is clear to me that Al Qaeda carries out terrorist acts becasue of Islam. Bin Laden is/was an inteligent man.
Charles Manson on the other hand was as crazy as they come and would have committed his crimes regardless of what religion he was, although it was christianity that he chose to follow.
There are many others like him.
Religion is often blamed for conficts but I think that you will find that most of these conficts are power or territorial based and religion is a mere catalyst.
Here are some more well known examples:
IRA: Struggle for independance of northern Ireland. not religious.
Hitler killing Jews because of their religion, not because of his religion.
Crusades: Now we are getting close to finding an example, but it could be argued that this was a war against two empires rather than a religious war.
The term Islamic Terrorist was coined because the terrorists in question are carrying out terrorist acts because of their religion and nothing else.

You make interesting points benwj.

My observation is that most of the killings of innocents and combatants around the world is being done for political and not religious motivations. Even those movements with quasi-religious links form the minority of those actually killing and terrorising civilians.

However, when taking the 'Fox News' view of the world, one is led to believe that Jihadists are the main threat to peace in the world today.

I was glad when rats brought up statistics as it would give us a chance to tally up some objective numbers and compare it with the hype. This is a specific subset of killings/terrorist acts - those carried out by people who have converted to a particular religion.

I still haven't presented any numbers, as I'm waiting for the sum total from 'rat's chosen period. The more he finds, the smaller the kill-ratio seems to get (the numbers killed per person labelled a 'converted terrorist'). It therefore appears that 'rats shares one trait with these nutters - they both seem to be 'all mouth and no trousers', to coin a phrase

I wonder how long it will take to get the promised numbers of 'converted terrorists', what proportion of converts they represent and, most importantly, the numbers of their victims?

Cheers,
Shafique

I suppose I should get cracking on those numbers, but to get a quick look at what I'm dealing with here, I found some article that says between 15%-20% of all prisoners in the US are Muslim:

The cumulative effects of Islamist recruitment in the U.S. penal system are as stunning as they are ominous. Currently, there are said to be roughly 350,000 inmates in federal, state and local prisons who identify themselves Muslims. Some 30,000-40,000 more are being added to that population each year.

Official estimates suggest that roughly 80% of prisoners who “find faith” while in prison convert to Islam and that the percentage of the prison population that is “Muslim” today is somewhere between 15-20%. In fact, prison conversion alone is a major contributor to the rapid growth of Islam in the United States.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7541

Using shafique's parameters to include persons who committed crimes before they converted, I would conservatively guess that perhaps 10-25% of those 350,000 Muslim inmates are in prison for murder (who knows how many for rape and other violent crimes?)

Of course, until I find a better source with that provides a thorough breakdown of the statistics, I can't definitively arrive at any conclusions, but I would say it's safe to guess that Muslim converts by far are more dangerous than converts to any other religion.

Perhaps shafique can provide figures for the total number of converts in the United States and I can divide that number with the number of people who have converted to Islam whilst in prison?

benwj wrote:Sorry to interrupt, this is interesting reading but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
There is fundamental difference between a terrorist who happens to be religious and one who carries out acts because of their religion.
This will make it a lot easier for you to tally up the numbers.

It is clear to me that Al Qaeda carries out terrorist acts becasue of Islam. Bin Laden is/was an inteligent man.
Charles Manson on the other hand was as crazy as they come and would have committed his crimes regardless of what religion he was, although it was christianity that he chose to follow.
There are many others like him.
Religion is often blamed for conficts but I think that you will find that most of these conficts are power or territorial based and religion is a mere catalyst.
Here are some more well known examples:
IRA: Struggle for independance of northern Ireland. not religious.
Hitler killing Jews because of their religion, not because of his religion.
Crusades: Now we are getting close to finding an example, but it could be argued that this was a war against two empires rather than a religious war.
The term Islamic Terrorist was coined because the terrorists in question are carrying out terrorist acts because of their religion and nothing else.

I agree with you. It takes a rather delusional person living in a fantasy land to conflate secular wars with jihad terror attacks carried out by Muslims who are influenced by the teachings and texts of Islam. I mean, it's not like I'm making this up, just read the justifications that jihadists use to carry out terror attacks and the fact that the end goal for Muslims, such as Hamas and al-Qaeda, is to establish Islamic law over all of the lands previously ruled by Muslims - this includes Spain, India, and parts of Europe.

By all means, please don't take my word for it. *Read* Hamas' charter or the statements of al Qaeda's leadership to find out what they're fighting for and how far they want to take their jihad.

What is even worse, is that the goals of groups like al Qaeda is not a perversion of Islamic law but what Islamic law *today* teaches and has held the same view for over 1300 years - that Muslims are to conquer non-Muslim lands.

Still waiting for those numbers.

And just to clarify, we need to count all those who commit crimes AFTER they converted, and divide this number by the total number of converts (not just those who converted in the year the crime took place). I don't know where you are getting the bit about crimes before they converted from... perhaps you are getting ahead of yourself and trying to exonerate Mr Blair?

As for the religion of criminals - that too would be an interesting question, and perhaps you can provide the statistics after you have dealt with this current project. I'd also be interested in seeing the results.

Cheers,
Shafique

And just to clarify, we need to count all those who commit crimes AFTER they converted

I see that someone is changing their parameters *after* this was already pointed out.

Anyways, I look forward to your data which now includes what I've already asked for several posts ago. Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after his term as Prime Minister ended. So, it wouldn't appear that your rather poor example of an extremist convert (lol @ claiming Tony Blair is a religious extremist) is actually responsible for anyone's death after his conversion.

This is in stark contrast to devout Muslims such as John Allen Muhammad, who described his actions as part of a 'jihad' and the Jamaican Muslim convert turn suicide bomber who took out twenty civilians so he could achieve martyrdom by killing infidels (as per the Koran, surah 9.111).

freefromrats wrote:

And just to clarify, we need to count all those who commit crimes AFTER they converted

I see that someone is changing their parameters *after* this was already pointed out.

Nice try at trying to shift the onus on me - you are the one that came up with the criteria and you are the one that we are waiting to produce your final count.

C'mon - what is the problem with counting the numbers of Muslim converts who committed acts of terrrorism, and counting their victims?

To keep things statistically relevant, we are going to express the numbers of so-called convert terrorists as a % of Muslim converts - but this is secondary to the absolute numbers we are waiting for you to produce.

We can compare those killed and terrorised by 'converts' with other groups of terrrorists (be they Catholic Converts or other groups) over the same period (2001 to 2009).

You can ask a friend to help count for you if you have problems with arithmetic and counting beyond 21

freefromrats wrote:Anyways, I look forward to your data which now includes what I've already asked for several posts ago. Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after his term as Prime Minister ended.

I agree - if Blair converted after his actions which led to the killing of innocents, then his figures should not count.

But that said, I haven't provided any figures yet - nor have I provided the evidence of when Blair actually became Catholic - all that is yet to come and will come after you provide your figures.

As I said, it is very funny to see you laying out your defence before I post my evidence... but we still wait your count.

Cheers,
Shafique

ANILA — Police said Tuesday they had arrested the head of a group of Islamist militants behind a deadly bombing in the Philippines capital, who also plotted attacks against US targets.

Dino Amor Pareja, the leader of the Rajah Solaiman Movement, a group of Christians who had converted to become Islamic militants, was captured at his hideout in the southern city of Marawi on Friday, national police chief Edgardo Verzosa told a news conference.

Verzosa said the US Department of Defense had offered a 90,000-dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of the suspect. An unnamed informant received a separate 500,000-peso (10,000-dollar) reward for the arrest, he added.

The police chief described Pareja as a skilled bomb-maker who was trained by Dulmatin and Umar Patek, both Jemaah Islamiyah militants who fled Indonesia to the Philippines to escape prosecution for the deadly 2002 Bali bombings.

Also known as Khalil Pareja, Abu Jihad and Al-Luzoni, the suspect is to stand trial in connection with a 2005 bombing in Manila's financial district that claimed three lives.

He will also be tried for a second blast in the southern port of Zamboanga that wounded 26 people, and a 2005 attack on a Philippine army detachment that left 10 soldiers dead.

The same year Pareja took part in a "failed bombing operation" codenamed "Big Bang" that targeted Manila establishments frequented by Americans and other foreigners, Verzosa said....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... CWo93-aNFA

There are now entire Islamist terror groups made up of converts.



And some honorable mention:

Sears tower jihadists, several men who "want(ed) to fight some jihad," (lol) have been convicted for their plans, which included blowing up the Sears tower. The men had also pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda (bayat) and have since been convicted for plotting anti government activity (jihad).

and:

A 22-year-old man was arrested in Chicago, Illinois, this week in connection with a plot to detonate explosives in malls, a federal law enforcement source said.

The man -- described as a U.S. citizen named Derrick Shareef -- faces charges for allegedly planning to set off hand grenades in garbage cans in malls during the holiday season.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/08/mall.plot/index.html

Perhaps I'll include both incidents, but right now, it looks like they were 'only' in the planning stage. I'm not sure that just planning is enough to prove that they were psychologically ready to wage jihad warfare - bomb malls, skyscapers, etc.

Nice try at trying to shift the onus on me - you are the one that came up with the criteria and you are the one that we are waiting to produce your final count.

Not at all. I previously mentioned this and said that the previous actions of a convert should *not* be included. You seemed to have a problem with this recommendation until I brought up the fact that there are thousands of violent converts to the religion of peace.

C'mon - what is the problem with counting the numbers of Muslim converts who committed acts of terrrorism, and counting their victims?

There are many problems. For one, it looks like I'm uncovering stories every day of a convert or five to Islam that became radicalized by the texts and teachings of Islam and were motivated to carry out violent jihad.

I think it would be better to figure out the percentage of violent Muslim converts per country. Figure out the total number of Muslim converts in Germany, American and Britain and find out the number of converts in each country that have since become influenced to carry out violent attacks as a result of the violent teachings of Islam.

I agree - if Blair converted after his actions which led to the killing of innocents, then his figures should not count.

Yes well, according to wikipedia, Blair did not convert until after consulting the pope and that happened when he left or was leaving office.

Of course, this ignores the big elephant in the room - Blair, unlike the converted Muslim male and female religious militants, is not a fundamentalist. I can understand that you have been unable to find a single convert to another religion other than Islam who has been influenced to carry out violent terror attacks based on the texts and teachings of their new religion.

Facts such as these should not be brought up and, instead, should be ignored.

As I said before, I'm quite happy for you to make good your offer to take up this challenge and provide me the statistics for me to compare and contrast.

I understand your wish to challenge any figures I may bring to contrast with yours, but it is funny you should do so before I provide any figures. As I said, I agree - any civilians killed before Blair became a practicing Catholic would not count towards his tally - so you can stop fretting that his figures will swamp those that Fox News have compiled for you.

We can count the civilian victims of Blair's actions over the years and see how many were killed when he was a non-Catholic, Catholic prior to public conversion, and publically converted Catholic.

I just have an issue with people saying one thing a doing another (all mouth, no trousers) - this applies to nutters who claim to be terrorists and civilian killers who claim to be moral liberationists. That is why I was so pleased when you said you'd provide hard facts so we can compare the narrative from Fox News et al with the actual evidence.

I'll return you the favour though - when you provide the numbers, please also provide the details and references so we can confirm that they count and agree on the numbers of victims.

I really do hope you aren't one of these 'all mouth, no trousers' posters and await your stats.

Cheers,
Shafique