Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

We can count the civilian victims of Blair's actions over the years

Ok, you do that.

Catholic prior to public conversion

I'm not aware that there is a pre-conversion in Catholicism. Perhaps you can enlighten as to what that is and when this occurred.

and publically converted Catholic.

My guess is that number would be zero.

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

Strange response. Am I somehow preventing you from presenting your stats? I suppose I could quibble over the definition of terrorism. Ahmed making pipe bombs in his masjid to use on the local Synagogue or night club would be a terrorist.

And if Ahmed was motivated to carry out violent attacks based on the texts and teachings of Islam, then he would be a religious terrorist.

So far, I haven't been convinced that Tony Blair's participation in the war on Iraq is considered terrorism.

According to various resolutions passed by the UN, the definition of terrorism is:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

The European Union defines terrorism as:

given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.

Unfortunately, making up definitions to words is not proof that the Iraq war is terrorism. Perhaps the word you were looking for is war crime, but this thread is about terrorism, not war crimes. Otherwise, I would be more than happy to include the *war crimes* carried out under the first generation of Muslims, all of whom were unarguably converts to Islam, as acts of terrorism.

Now, going back to planet earth, you still need to show that

1) Blair's actions after his conversion directly led to the deaths of civilians

2) Blair's actions had the goal of "terrorizing" the civilians population of a country, i.e., Blair's actions would fall under the general definition of terrorism, not a war crime.

3) Blair is a religious fundamentalist who is following/motivated by the texts and teachings of the religion he converted to.

I would imagine, short of making up any further definitions such as terrorism or conversion (claiming that a person who physically moves to another region is a convert ), you have a long road ahead of you. So, you should probably worry about what you have to do instead of dragging your feet on your own challenge because I have not yet crunched any numbers. Feel free and start yourself.

Uh oh. Looks like I've found more British converts to Islam who are in prison for trying to blow up the country they were born and raised in.

I have to say, this seems like a recurring theme among many British Muslim converts.

Muslim Converts in Britain Seen as Among Most Extreme

He was just 12, the son of a former Conservative Party organizer in a neat suburban neighborhood of single-family homes and duplexes, when the father he adored died. He started drinking, neighbors say. Getting in fights.

But six months ago, Don Stewart-Whyte stopped drinking and smoking, and became calmer and more polite, those who know him say.

The 21-year-old had converted to Islam, the currency of some of the toughest and hippest young Asian students in his High Wycombe neighborhood.

"Islam answered all his questions, so he became a Muslim," said Abid Zaman, a Muslim habitue of the neighborhood west of London.

Today, Stewart-Whyte is being held with 21 other suspects in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic. Stewart-Whyte, who became Abdul Waheed, and two other suspects were converts to Islam, reinforcing what many security experts and clerics already knew: The fervor and inexperience of new converts provides fertile soil for the allure of radical theology.

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=11153

And shafique wonders why I haven't provided any numbers yet. Finding out just how many converts to Islam are becoming terrorists is turning out to be quite a Herculean task!

Still (patiently) waiting for your stats.

A reminder:
1. Number and list of Muslim Converts who committed terrorist crimes between 2001 and 2009
2. Number and list of Muslim converts accused of/suspected of being terrrorists or planning terrroist plots over 2001 to 2009
3. Total number of Muslim converts (new and past converts) for each of the years (so we can work out ratios)
4. Numbers of victims of 1.

Once we have your list and verified that the people on it fit the criteria, I'll compare that with the terrorist acts and victims, committed by other groups -starting with converts to Catholicism (and then we can examine the evidence for when conversion takes place).

As I said, if you are having problems counting - please ask for help - I'd categorise the counting of Iraqi civilians killed as 'Herculean' but let's not prejudge your stats and await your final count and then see whether this number is 'Herculean' or not.

Cheers,
Shafique

Great, I'll start with Britain.

According to this news article, there are some 14,000 converts living in Britain:

MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 026534.ece

Although that statistic only includes (for whatever reason) white British converts. So, I'll go ahead and triple that figure and assume that there are around 45,000 British Muslim converts. After all, if Britian is anything like the United States, then there must be a plethora of violent criminals (rapists, murderers) attracted to the teachings of Islam.

According to the news articles I've posted in this thread, there have been

1 successful suicide bomber
5 unsuccessful suicide bombers

So, statistically speaking, less than one in every ten thousand converts to Islam living in the UK is likely to blow themselves up or wind up getting arrested before they are successful at actually doing so.

I'll wait for shafique to provide his stats for the number of suicide bomber converts to other religions in the UK and then we can compare and contrast to see which group of converts (converts to Islam or converts to all other religions) are more likely to become suicide bombers.

There's a one in eight hundred thousand chance of being on a plane with a bomb on board. There's a one in three million chance of being on a plane with two bombs on board.

The rule of course is ALWAYS TAKE YOUR OWN BOMB.

At last Freefromrats provides some stats - woo hoo.

It seems that now the focus is going to be country by country - ok fair, enough, let's start there and accumulate as we go along.

So, for the UK we have the grand total of, steady - drum roll..... how many actual convert terorrists...... ... ..... hold on ......

yes

it is

ONE!

I note that rats does not number the victims killed by the convert - an oversight I guess. Rats - how many did he kill?

So, over the 8 years in question there has been one example.

5 suspected of being terrorists - with no victims.


So now, I just have to compare UK born converts who committed acts of terrorism over the same period, and see whether the ratio of converts is greater or less than that of Muslim converts being terrorists (less than 1 in 10,000).

It is also fascinating to read the linked article which talks about high profile converts to Islam and read that rats infers that there are more converts who are criminals. Careful, your bias is showing through.

Hmmm - one example (or even 6) does not lend itself to statistical credibility, but it is enlighting to see on what hard evidence the Fox News crowds draw their conclusions.

Rats - I presume you have other examples, or is counting up to 6 the limit for you here?

Cheers,
Shafique


Cheers,
Shafique

ONE!

I'm sorry that you're not very impressed that there has only been one! successful Muslim convert suicide bomber. To be fair, the number of British Muslims who have successfully blown themselves up is higher, but we're not talking about Britain's Muslim population as a whole, only the 50,000 or so converts walking around.

And to my mind, that one successful suicide bomber is still more than the suicide bombings carried out by converts to other religions which, as I understand it, stands at zero.

But of course, it seems that you have also ignored that there has been a failed Muslim convert suicide bomber who prematurely detonated his explosives (I think the explosives were not yet properly mixed) before he would have been able to unleash the full power of his explosives.

While we're at it, I might as well remind you of the three converts who were days away from taking part in yet another terror attack against Britain. Except this time, this attack would have killed thousands of people. But hey, I can totally understand if you're not impressed by failure.

In the meantime, I'll (patiently) wait for your stats to show how many converts to other religions have become religiously motivated suicide bombers who thought they would receive a reward in heaven for dying whilst killing infidels.

I'm impressed it took you this long to count to 1 and yet omit to list the number of victims.

I note that you are now trying to narrow the list to suicide bombers who are converts, rather than just terrorists who are converts - but a bit late in the thread to try and change the goalposts again, I'd say.

As I said, I'm happy to make the comparison you're after and see whether the one example you have presented is significant enough to draw any conclusions.

I mean, what conclusions could we draw if look at Baruch Goldstein - that all American Doctors who choose to colonise Palestine are terrorists - or that Judaism is a violent religion because Goldstein was religously motivated in his act of killing innnocents. I would hazard that he killed more people than your example (I'm still waiting for your figure of victims). Do you agree that Goldstein, as a terrorist, was more deadly than the 'convert' in question - and was definitely religiously motivated in his act of terrorism?

Then we can come to the numbers killed by converts to religions other than Islam over the period and compare them with your (still to be disclosed) total.

Cheers,
Shafique

that all American Doctors who choose to colonise Palestine are terrorists

I must have missed this post I made. But, where did I say that all converts to Islam become terrorists, again?

I note that you are now trying to narrow the list to suicide bombers who are converts

It was a curious question. I'm not aware of converts to other religions carrying out terror bombings, etc. That also includes Hindu/Christian/Buddhist converts that blow themselves up. I think the only religion lucky enough to be a member of this club is Islam. Would you disagree?

I would hazard that he killed more people than your example

I see that you're back to your made up definition of conversion. Traveling from one region to another is not a conversion according to any dictionary I'm familiar with. But hey, I guess this is what I can expect from people who wish to believe what they read off of kooky pseudo Muslim websites, which includes copy/pasting talking points from said websites.

Anyways, I'll await for your list of religious zealot converts from other religions who were motivated by the texts and teachings of their new religion to carry out bombings, suicide or otherwise.

Bravo at not answering one of my questions.

So, how many victims of the one terrorist convert over the 8 years rats? I need this figure to compare against those killed by converts to other religions over that period.


Also, do you agree that Goldstein is a religiously motivated terrorist?


So, to recap - 1. the number of victims 2. Yes/No - to whether Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist.


Cheers,
Shafique

freefromrats wrote:

that all American Doctors who choose to colonise Palestine are terrorists

I must have missed this post I made. But, where did I say that all converts to Islam become terrorists, again?

It's not the post you've missed - it's the point I was making that trying to draw conclusions from one instance of terrorism is not statistically credible.

Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist and was an American Doctor who emigrated to occupied Palestine and killed in Israeli Army Uniform with Israeli Army guns. He is one example - what conclusions can we draw from his actions - that American Doctors are likely to become terrorists, or that Judaism teaches violence against worshippers?

The point is not that Goldstein was a terrorist like the suicide bomber on 7/7 - but both represent one instance of terrorism and I would not draw any conclusions from just one instance.

Please don't let my explanation detract you from the 2 questions in my previous post.

I'll let you provide the number of victims - it will provide a point of comparison/reference when we look at the other victims.

Cheers,
Shafique

Uh oh. It doesn't seem that you're going to like this. If you care to go back to the first page, the challenge was over the number of terror attacks and attempted terror attacks carried out by converts of different faiths:

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.

Right now, I am unaware of terror attacks (that includes suicide bombings) carried out by Hindu/Christian/Buddhist converts - although I am aware of suicide bombings and numerous attempted suicide bombings carried out by converts to the Muslim faith.

Perhaps now you can get back to actual 'challenge' of this thread that was agreed upon?

And if you have any question over the definition of terrorism or convert, please feel free to consult me.

They just love the sight of their own words in print, the same non-statements, over and over and over, accusing each other of not answering each other. What a load of nonsensical claptrap.

Yeah its always the same story everywhere isn't it. There should be worldwide trollforum where all the trolls from every forum can go, and troll happily ever after.

ohhh - no fair. Pleeeeze let me play with the troll a bit - it is a separate troll thread after all!



Rats - still waiting for you to provide all the info for your 1 solitary black swan of a terrorist. How many victims did the successful numpty kill and injure?


It is telling that your intensive searching had uncovered one example in 8 years in the UK.

I'm not surprised that you don't want to answer the questions about Goldstein either - don't want to show the world that a single terrorist is hardly a basis to draw conclusions about their religion - or perhaps you don't think that the white doctor was a terrorist and are one of his fans who venerate his actions?

Cheers,
Shafique

Rats - still waiting for you to provide all the info for your 1 solitary black swan of a terrorist. How many victims did the successful numpty kill and injure?

Reminds me of the thread on the other forum where you were asked half a dozen times if you copy/posted your talking points from that Ahmadiyya website. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to present those historical facts you say exist about early Christian communities. My guess is that you made the claim up, but I guess I'll have to wait through another twelve pages of obfuscation before I get an answer. But hey, you're more than free to believe that Speedhump's comment of posters who love their own statements in print doesn't describe you to a tee.

As for your question, I've already answered you. There has been one successful British convert suicide bomber and five unsuccessful ones. This is the challenge that I accepted, so why are you having such a problem with providing the stats of non-Muslim convert terrorist bombers? Certainly, you're not in love with your non-statements, right?

*closes the door and tiptoes away....*

rats - so how is flying dutchman?

I guess you must be 'ikka' from the other forum - and see you are still up to your old tricks. When the questions get tough, you get personal. Ha, ha.

So, I ask how many victims the one example you counted had, and you decide to not answer the question. Not surprising.


I fully understand the reason for your reluctance - even though from outset I was pretty clear on the stats you had to produce. Do you always stop half-way through your tasks?

Anyway - I'll patiently wait for you to provide the missing information and then we'll move on to seeing how many converts to other religions killed innocents over the 8 year period and compare them with your running count of one terrorist and x victims (where you still have to provide x).


Also noted the fact that you haven't denied that you may be a Goldstein supporter, nor have you acknowledged that he was a religiously motivated terrorist.

If you want to focus on one Muslim terrorist, then I have to wonder why you choose not to denounce a Jewish terrorist.

Cheers,
Shafique

I came across this quote this morning and thought it apposite here:

Try finding more convincing and broad evidence rather than rare,specious incidences that occur in every society.

Cheers,
Shafique

there are no need to answer him, he got all the answers all over and avalible to everyone, but he doesn't seem to accept it. so it is a waste of time.

^ But give rats/ikka credit - he did manage to count to 1 terrorist who was a Muslim convert!

rats - I'll give you a helping hand (as it's ramadhan and I feel charitable) - the number of victims killed by your one, sole, successful numpty terrorist was 26. His name was Germaine Lindsay and he was 19.

So one convert from your estimate of 45,000 Muslim converts became a terrorist. The article you linked to said 14,000 other Brits became Muslim since 2001, and went into who some of them were and what they believed - showing that your one example above is hardly represenative and not statistically signficant.

As for now comparing with converts who killed civilians over the same period, I have to say that my first choice is still Mr Tony Blair who converted to Catholicism over the same period, and whose actions have led to the continuing killing of civilians. Even if we take the date of his conversion as December 2007, he hasn't changed his views about the validity of his actions as PM, and the evidence is that he only converted after stepping down as PM because of political reasons, not religious.

In any case, he and Bush have admitted to praying and seeking God's guidance before launching the wars that have killed more than 26 innocent people. Indeed, there are calls for both to be tried as war criminals - but fat chance of that ever happening.

So, one 19 year old numpty who blew himself up and killed 26 civilians - vs 44,999 other converts, including those eloquent ones in your article and vs 1 high profile Catholic convert whose civilian victims are countless (literally).

Cheers,
Shafique

and whose actions have led to the continuing killing of civilians.

Ok, I'll wait for you to provide a breakdown of those stats. I am curious how many Iraqi civilians have been killed directly by the British military (not insurgent bombs) and then from that figure, a further breakdown to filter out civilians killed by collateral damage (civilians killed by collateral damage does not count, because as we all know, Muhammad is recorded in hadiths to give the 'green light' for Muslims to carry out raids/use catapults that would kill civilians).

After that, we can look at the differences between Catholic theology and Sunni theology - see which calls for perpetual warfare against unbelievers and then see which converts, Mr. Tony Blair or the Islamic suicide bomber, were motivated by the texts and teachings of their religion. I would imagine that praying to God is not an indictment of any one particular religion - anyone could pray to God and think that God has given them approval for certain things, after all, it happened in Arabia around 610 ce, and I don't blame any other religions for that!

Perhaps after that, you can finally provide the passages from Gibbon's book that I asked for on the other forum.

freefromrats wrote:

and whose actions have led to the continuing killing of civilians.

Ok, I'll wait for you to provide a breakdown of those stats.

I said the number of civilian victims is countless. I presume you understood this to mean 'a large number'.

I could also add to the list of alleged crimes the fact that there are now more terrorists in Iraq than before the war, but hey, let's stick with the numbers of civilians killed for now.

Let me quote the eminent Tony Benn who said in 2007:

And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.

Do you dispute that more than 26 have been killed by allied bombs and bullets as a result of Blair's decisions?

Note that the calls for war crimes charges against Blair are precisely because the war led to more than justified collateral damage - and in any case, if the war was illegal to start with, then anyone killed is as a result of criminal behaviour.


But I knew you'd run away from the stats - but I have to say that I did not think you'd only come up with a grand total of ONE.

Let me remind you of a phrase that I'm sure you will have seen many times:
"Must try harder"

(If you want to discuss historical events again with me, happy to do so in another thread - but you may find I'll just refer you to the answers I've given before.)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:rats - so how is flying dutchman?

I am not rats, but he is in Amsterdam now and is doing fine. He will be back in Dubai the 14th. Why do you ask?

Well, say Hi to FD from me then.

rats is 'ikka' from the other forum (he should have said so before - its a relief to realise there is one and not two of him around! ).

The reason I ask is that Ikka seems to be the un-thinking Israeli fanboy to FDs more considered posts in support of Israel and sometimes I wonder if Ikka is just FD having fun and pretending to be obtuse? Nah - come to think of it, you it would be hard to fake consistently the Ikka/Rats posts!

Cheers,
Shafique

I said the number of civilian victims is countless. I presume you understood this to mean 'a large number'.

I agree that Muslim and Baathist terrorists have murdered many civilians, but I have stressed in my earlier posts that I do not include their crimes under the civilians killed by the British military.

I could also add to the list of alleged crimes the fact that there are now more terrorists in Iraq than before the war

I agree that there was a large presence of Jihadists/terrorists in Iraq but, thankfully, many of the former Sunni insurgents have now turned against their former comrades for a few dollars and seats in Iraq's parliament. Good point, but I fail to see any connection with civilians killed by Islamists/Baathists and the British military.

And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.

Well, unfortunately, I do see a difference between a military force that targets military/militant positions and suicide bombers that target Mosques/marketplaces. I guess that kind of 'hair splitting' is too much for the prominent Tony Benn to consider.

Do you dispute that more than 26 have been killed by allied bombs and bullets as a result of Blair's decisions?

Let's look at the numbers before any conclusions are drawn.

Note that the calls for war crimes charges against Blair are precisely because the war led to more than justified collateral damage - and in any case, if the war was illegal to start with, then anyone killed is as a result of criminal behaviour.

That's one view. I tend to side with people who conclude the early Jihad conquests of Iraq (and subsequent human rights violations) were war crimes. But hey, I guess it's all based on opinion - Muslims condone the early aggressive wars carried out by the Caliphs and non-Muslims/human rights advocates call them war crimes. What's in a name?

But I knew you'd run away from the stats

Still waiting (patiently) for you to produce your stats.

freefromrats wrote:

I said the number of civilian victims is countless. I presume you understood this to mean 'a large number'.

I agree that Muslim and Baathist terrorists have murdered many civilians, but I have stressed in my earlier posts that I do not include their crimes under the civilians killed by the British military.

Yes, I agree. I'm also making the point that more than 26 civilians have been killed as a direct result of 'allied' bombings and shootings - and, not insignficantly, there are now more terrorists in Iraq as a result of the (illegal) war.

But if you want to expand the list of killings to those done by non-converts (strange that you want to run away from your original premise) - then, again, I'm happy to compare the numbers killed by Muslims and those killed by non-Muslims - but may I suggest you do that it another thread.

freefromrats wrote:

And it's a war crime that's been committed in Iraq, because there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.

Well, unfortunately, I do see a difference between a military force that targets military/militant positions and suicide bombers that target Mosques/marketplaces.

Yes - I understand your view. That is why I stated quite early on that we should stay away from subjective views (Islam equals terror, the West is Evil, Ikka knows what he is talking about etc) and stick to statistics - eg numbers of civilians killed.

Let's allow the stats to speak for themselves.

Your count of Muslim convert terrorists stands at ONE/Uno/Un (just trying to dress it up a bit for you), who killed 26 civilians.

freefromrats wrote:

Do you dispute that more than 26 have been killed by allied bombs and bullets as a result of Blair's decisions?

Let's look at the numbers before any conclusions are drawn.

Yes, I agree.

What is your count of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as a direct result of going to war? Let's keep it simple, is it less than 26?

freefromrats wrote:

Note that the calls for war crimes charges against Blair are precisely because the war led to more than justified collateral damage - and in any case, if the war was illegal to start with, then anyone killed is as a result of criminal behaviour.

That's one view.

Yes - I see that counting to one does not pose a problem for you.

freefromrats wrote: I tend to side with people who conclude the early Jihad conquests of Iraq (and subsequent human rights violations) were war crimes.

Trying to inject some humour at the expense of facts - nice one .

However, if you are talking about CIA putting the Baath party in charge - it is strange to call this a Jihad. But if you are talking about early Islamic history - then this shows your desperation that you have to revert to your orientalist view of history when discussing what took place between 2001 and 2009!!

freefromrats wrote:

But I knew you'd run away from the stats

Still waiting (patiently) for you to produce your stats.

I've matched your ONE terrorist with One Catholic convert whose actions killed more than 26 innocent victims.

I understand that you may struggle with these higher numbers, but please try to keep up. It would be a shame if you added to your list of fictional beliefs the fallacy that I haven't provided any stats - I've listed ONE catholic convert and asked you whether you agree his actions killed more than 26 civilians.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm glad that shafique has provided some free online Spanish and French tutoring for anyone needing help learning numbers.

Perhaps shafique's French and Spanish knowledge is as deep as is his knowledge on the Talmud ???

Anyways, perhaps I've missed your answers in the last post, but what are the stats for civilians killed (collateral damage not included) by the British military, again?

Hopefully this won't be a repeat of asking for shafique to produce quotes from Gibbon's book to show that the gospels/new testament are historically inaccurate. After all, I wouldn't want shafique to be all talk and no trousers...?

You really must try and keep up rats. I said the numbers of civilians killed by British military are 'countless' and asked you whether you thought they numbered more than 26 or not.

Asking me to count for you is really not on. I really don't care how you want to label the numbers of civilians killed, we should just be counting them. You can seek to justify the numbers killed - just as those who support the 7/7 terrorists seek to justify their actions - I'm with Tony Benn who sees no distinction between the means of killing, when the intention is to kill for political purposes. But in this case, we are examining specifically the deaths of civilians.

What is telling, though, is after all the hype, bluster and bravado displayed in your initial posts of this thread - the cold, hard stats show you have so far only listed one teenage convert who killed 26. His background shows he had a grudge against society, was a drug dealer and that normal Muslims in his mosque were suspicious of him - but hey, you are only interested in the label 'muslim convert'.

All mouth, no trousers, indeed.


Let me give you another cliché:
one sparrow does not a summer make



(As for any other lingering issues over your orientalist views of Islam - or the history of Pauline Christianity - those can still be dealt with in another thread in the appropriate section - Religion. Interesting to note that you have to resort to such tactics to change the subject - 10/10 for effort, 0/10 for subtlety)

Cheers,
Shafique