Wednesday, September 28, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Loonwatch.com

Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslims… And Why America is to Blame For It

18 June 2012 Loonwatch.com 46 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslims… And Why America is to Blame For It

Following the 9/11 attacks, President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), both of which gave “the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States.”  IRTPA also established the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which began publishing annual terrorism reports since 2005.  The 2011 report, released to the public last week, ominously warned of “the persistent treat terrorism poses.”

Yet, the NCTC’s own data belies its predetermined conclusions: the threat of terrorism to the average American is virtually non-existent.  In the entire year of 2011, exactly zero civilians in the U.S. were killed by terrorism.  In fact, not a single civilian in the U.S. has been killed by Islamic terrorism since 9/11, well over a decade ago.  Put another way: more Americans are killed from being crushed to death by their television sets than by terrorism, a realization that should put “the persistent threat” of terrorism into some much-needed perspective.

The same is the case across the pond: Europol has released yearly terrorism reports since 2006.  Going through these, one cannot find a single civilian in Europe who has been killed by Islamic terrorism.  (It should be noted, however, that the as of yet unreleased 2012 report will no doubt reflect the Toulouse shootings, which resulted in the death of four civilians.)  Indeed, the truth is that less than 1% of terrorism in Europe is by Muslims.

In other words, the threat of Islamic terrorism in the Western world is very minimal.  It has been grossly exaggerated in order to justify the multiple wars being waged in Muslim majority countries.  The charge is led by anti-Muslim ideologues, but the overarching premise–that Islamic terrorism is a great threat to Western civilization (even an existential threat to it)–is accepted by virtually all segments of American society.

*  *  *  *  *

Not only do Muslims inflict zero civilian deaths in America and Europe, they bear the brunt of terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia.  The 2011 NCTC report found that the vast majority of deaths from religious terrorism were in fact Muslims.  The report reads:

• In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.

• Muslim majority countries bore the greatest number of attacks involving 10 or more deaths, with Afghanistan sustaining the highest number (47), followed by Iraq (44), Pakistan (37), Somalia (28), and Nigeria (12).

• Afghans also suffered the largest number of fatalities overall with 3,245 deaths, followed by Iraqis (2,958), Pakistanis (2,038), Somalis (1,013), and Nigerians (590).

The bulk of these terrorist attacks (68%) were carried out by Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Taliban (see p.11 of the report).

Based on these two facts–1) that Muslims are the number one victims of Islamic terrorism, and 2) that Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Taliban are most responsible for this—the American mind, fully ensconced in the national mythology, reaches the conclusion that Muslims ought to support America’s War on Terror; or, worded in an even more imperial tone:

Muslims should be grateful to us for fighting for them against the Bad Guys.

And yet, grateful is the last word to describe Muslim sentiment.  Muslims around the globe (including in Afghanistan and Iraq), overwhelmingly disapprove of the so-called War on Terror.  In fact, they hold very negative views of the United States (at least in regard its foreign policy), viewing “‘U.S. interference in the Arab world’ as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East.”  This, in spite of the majority holding very negative views towards Al-Qaeda and its tactics.

So, why aren’t these Moozlums grateful for all that we’ve done for them?

It’s because they know what is painfully obvious: it is U.S. military intervention in the region that is most responsible for creating the problem of terrorism.

This becomes very clear if we look at the three countries that have reported the highest number of terrorism-related fatalities (according to NCTC data):  Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  These three countries alone accounted for 64% of terrorism-related fatalaties in 2005, 74% in 2006, 77% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 61% in 2009, 66% in 2010, and 70% in 2011.

Iraqis specifically have suffered the most from terrorism: according to the NCTC, from 2005 to 2007 some 55-65% of terrorism-related fatalities occurred in Iraq alone.  The 2009 report declared: “Since 2005, Iraq continues to be the country with the most attacks and fatalities due to terrorism.”

The report also stated that the group most responsible for terrorism was (and continues to be) Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  What the NCTC failed to point out, however, was that (in the words of Barack Obama) “Al-Qaeda in Iraq…didn’t exist before our invasion.”  Al-Qaeda in Iraq was founded with the intent to “[e]xpel the Americans from Iraq” and topple the interim government propped up by the United States.  The Iraqis can thank the United States for creating the conditions that spawned this terrorist group, as well as for the resulting violence.

In fact, is it very easy to see the correlation between the U.S. invasion and terrorism in Iraq using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), which has tracked terrorist incidents for several decades.

In the year before the Iraq War (from 3/19/2002 to 3/19/2003), there were only 13 terrorist attacks and 14 terrorism-related deaths in Iraq.  In the year after the Iraq War (from 3/20/2003 to 3/20/2004), there were 225 terrorist attacks and 1,074 terrorism-related deaths.  In other words, the U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in an over 1700% increase in terrorist attacks and an over 7600% increase in terrorism-related deaths in just one year.  

At the height of the Iraq War, there were 3,968 terrorist attacks, resulting in 9,497 deaths–which amounts to an over 30,000% increase in terrorist incidents and over 67,000% increase in terrorism-related deaths as compared to pre-war years.

Here is a graphical representation to help visualize the data from RDWTI:

With the U.S. invasion Iraq went from having a virtually non-existent terrorism problem to becoming the world champion of terrorism, a title it continued to hold up until 2010.  It is difficult to attribute this to mere coincidence.

In 2011, Iraq dropped to second place, being overtaken by another one of America’s arenas of war: Afghanistan.  This war-torn country is a second example of how U.S. military intervention created the problem of terrorism.

According to the NCTC reports, the Taliban have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorism-related deaths in Afghanistan.  Yet, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were not terrorists, at least not how the term is commonly employed today by the United States.  Certainly, they were theocratic tyrants who imposed a frighteningly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on the Afghan people.  But, the Taliban at this time weren’t associated with Al-Qaeda style tactics such as suicide attacks, car bombs, or IED explosives.

The RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents supports this assertion, recording only two incidents involving the Taliban in the year prior to 9/11: an assassination attempt of a rebel leader and a rocket attack.

As government documents reveal, it was only after “[t]he Taliban was driven from power in late 2001, during the course of a United States-led invasion of Afghanistan” that “the Taliban has operated as a violent insurgent organization–bent on driving the United States and its allies from Afghanistan…resort[ing] to armed violence: car bombings; suicide strikes; rocket attacks; kidnappings; and murder.”  The Taliban resorted to terrorist tactics in their fight against foreign occupiers and the U.S.-installed puppet regime in Kabul.  This conflict, almost wholly a result of U.S. actions, is responsible for the violence and wave of terrorism that has rocked Afghanistan for the last decade.

Using the data from RDWTI, we find that in the year just prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there were only three terrorist attacks in the country, resulting in eight fatalities.  By 2008, the number of terrorist attacks had jumped to 450 and the number of terrorism-related deaths to 1,228.  In other words, the U.S. War in Afghanistan resulted in a 15,000% increase in both terrorism related incidents and deaths. 

Here’s what it looks graphically:

The U.S.-led War in Afghanistan has created a worsening terrorism problem for Pakistan as well.  There are many complex reasons for this spike in violence within Pakistan (which are beyond the scope of this article), but all are ultimately rooted in America’s War on Terror.  Using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, we find that there was an over 750% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan as a result of America’s war (568 deaths in 2008 as compared to 73 in 2000).

Lest Democratic supporters be tempted to think that the blame belongs to George Bush’s administration alone, let them be informed that war-making has bipartisan consensus.  President Barack Obama has continued the legacy of warring in the Muslim world.

We can actually trace American war-making using Muslim corpses as an indicator.  Obama promised to shift focus from Iraq to Afghanistan.  U.S. troop levels in Iraq decreased by 400% from 2007 to 2011; coincidentally, in the same time span there was a 400% decrease in Iraqi fatalities from terrorism (according to NCTC data).

Meanwhile, Noble Peace Prize winner Barack Obama increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 300% between 2008 and 2011.  According to NCTC data, between 2008 and 2011 there was an over 230% increase in terrorist attacks and over 150% increase in terrorism-related deaths in Afghanistan.

Obama has also stepped up the war in Pakistan.  NCTC data reveals a 600% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan from 2005 (338) to 2011 (2,033).  In 2011, Pakistan had the dubious honor of entering into the top three when it comes to terrorism, coming behind Afghanistan and Iraq.  What but the War on Terror could have so efficiently created such an epidemic of terrorism in Pakistan?

Before the so-called War on Terror, levels of terrorism in Muslim lands were similar to what they were in other parts of the world.  For example, the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents indicates that, up until the U.S.-led War on Terror, the Middle East and Latin America had similar incidents of terrorism; it was only after the U.S.-led War on Terror that terrorism in the Middle East shot way up:

In the year 2000, there were a total of 404 terrorist attacks in all of the Middle East and South Asia.  By 2006, this number jumped to 5,738–an increase of more than 1400%!  This is what America’s War on Terror has done for terrorism in the Muslim world.

The same trend holds for terrorist attacks globally.  In the year 2000, there were 1,151 total terrorist attacks.  By 2006, this number had rocketed up to 6,660.  In other words, the U.S.-led War on Terror caused a more than 570% increase in worldwide terrorism.

Islamophobes would have us believe that it is Islam itself that is responsible for the upsurge in terrorism.  Most Americans, even many liberals, believe that “radical Islam” is the root of the problem.  The data, however, suggests that it is the United States of America that is most responsible for creating the conditions on the ground that inexorably lead to terrorism.

It is difficult to deny the correlation between the U.S.-led War on Terror and the rise of terrorism worldwide.  Is it not a great irony of our times that the very policies designed to combat terrorism are most responsible for creating terrorism?  To add another layer of perverse irony, the steep rise in terrorism–a direct result of U.S. action–is used to justify further such action.

In the words of Glenn Greenwald:

How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?

But it is Muslims who not only have to deal with American “inva[sions], droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men”, but also have to bear the brunt of the terrorism that inevitably follows.  It is truly a double whammy for them.

The vast majority of Americans will never face religious terrorism in their lives: less than 1% of terrorism victims are U.S. civilians.  Meanwhile, up to 97% are Muslims.

It is truly an Orwellian world we live in.  The nation most responsible for creating rampant terrorism lays the blame on the victims of such terrorism.  Muslims are told that “they aren’t doing enough to combat terror”, even while Americans do their utmost to reflexively continue such action as would ensure the continued survival–nay, the rapid proliferation–of terror.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

Share/Bookmark




46 Comments »

  1. Surprise surprise. Muslims blow everyone else up and then blame everybody else.

  2. In the years before we invaded iraq, iraqis would appear on US TV and in print, telling horrid stories of what was going on under Saddam and sons. Over the top stories, people dipped in acid, etc.

    Iraq invaded Kuwait.

    In the 90s, Algerians were being horribly massacred.

    Lebanon had a civil war – some sources say because they accepted Palestinian refugees who tore the country apart.

    Before that the Turks were murdering Kurds and Armenians, a tradition they have kept up.

    A steady stream of refugees from all this has been heading west. Yes indeed the citizens of muslim lands are victims of all this. Some say they should be left to rot and kill each other without the safety valve of escaping here.

    The US is pulling out. No great support for jumping in again.

  3. the specious reasoning is hilarious. so let me see if i follow. we invade iraq. the iraqis, rather then deciding we will unite to build a better iraq after saddam is gone. they say, no let us grab what ever power we can in the vacuum. we are sunni, we should kill the shai, we are shia, let’s kill sunnis. we are muslims, let’s kill the christians, we are arabs, let’s kill the kurds, we are kurds, let’s kill the arabs.

    “it is U.S. military intervention in the region that is most responsible for creating the problem of terrorism.” seriously? the terrorists aren’t most responsible????????????????

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18494791

  4. “Is it not a great irony of our times that the very policies designed to combat terrorism are most responsible for creating terrorism?” well are not the policies designed to combat terrorism on american soil? has the author points out there have been no civilians (the 11 or 13 military personel at hood, although wasn’t the one guy a civilian dod employee? anyways) killed in america since 9/11? sounds like the policies are working. if muslim chose to kill each other, that is not on us.

    again so why did 9/11 happen?

  5. What Mike is describing is tribalism. Must kill what isn’t our tribe. Most places have outgrown this way of thinking because it creates endless disorder and kills too many people.

  6. anon,

    “Most places have outgrown this way of thinking” i greatly doubt that.

  7. I thought the numbers were interesting. Perhaps the Islamic world would have been and would be better off if they did not attack American Cities. On the other hand I do not see how any of this can be true as Islam is a religion of peace. Being such a religion I do not see how or why Muslims would actually kill each other in pursuit of peace. If they did kill each other in such numbers what excuse would these killers have when they personally face Allah upon their eventual death? On the other hand if Allah approves of these killings does it mean that Allah intends to gain peace through extermination of all but the chosen? Assuming this is the case and the world is depopulated to the point only the chosen are left what would happen if one chosen killed another chosen? Would the chosen that was killed prove not to be a chosen because he was killed and it was the will of Allah? Or, would the one who killed one of the chosen be punished because he killed a chosen and thus proved he was not a chosen one?
    What is the point of this nonsense? I do not know if there is any point. However, anyone who kills in the name of God or Allah while professing to know the will of God or Allah is engaged in a pointless exercise as there will always be a group of men or a man that yet still needs to be killed in order to meet the Faithfull’s goal of fulfilling God’s will. Thus the faithful simply turn into Mass Murders in spite of the fact that the Faithfull’s religious text tells them not to kill. It must be wonderful to have such a relationship with God or Allah such that one can kill with impunity and fervor in his service inspite of written prohibitions.

  8. RL,

    Don’t be surprised or you may be undrpriced. Christianity arose much earlier than Islam and has had more opportunities to blow everyone up. A fundamentalist Christian emperor Theodosius ordered the destruction of Alexandria Library. Leo Isaurus burnt 3,00,000 books in Constantinople in the 8th century. After Rome and Constantinople adopted Christianity, they begam to massacre their pagan compatriots. What happened to Giodarno Bruno? Did Muslims kill him? Who waged the 100 years war, the WWs, the Korean war, the Vietnam war? Who atom bombed the Japanese and incinerated the hapless 2,00,000? Who is liable for the Holocaust? Who created Dustbin Laden and Sodom (Saddam) Hussein? You are talking about Muslims blowing everyone else. It takes two to make a quarrel. You boast of using UAVs to kill Muslim terrorists yet the Taliban and the Haqqani network still going great guns. Very good. Your hypocrisy and blatant one-eyedness must be saluted and given red carpet reception.

  9. Criley, (read if u actually care)
    Ur comments sound like terrorism. “Perhaps the Islamic world would have been and would be better off if they did not attack American Cities.”
    Please tell me. Is invading every Muslim country and killing women and children justified because of one attack on America? America has done plenty of war crimes and has been invading Muslim countries long b4 9/ll, so if 9/ll was a response to decades of American invasion, would it be alright for me to say “Perhaps if the Western world would have been better off it they did not invade Muslim countries, give weapons to Saddam, overthrow the democracy in Iran, etc. And as pointed out, their were no terrorist attacks prior to our invasion. Perhaps u would better understand if I gave u a similar fact of history. During WW I the majority of Americans did not want to be involved in oversea wars. But that all changed when the German U boats sunk are poor citizen ships heading to the UK. Those terrorists! Next thing u know, we are at war with Germany. Now all the Americans back the war. Over 70 years later, it is revealed by salvaging the wreckage of those ships, the civilian ships were carrying weapons to be supplied to Britain. America broke the peace first, and forced their way into a war. Regardless of the American lives lost, America’s interests come first. Perhaps if ppl looked closer at 9/ll they may see something strange. The Madrid, Spain building fire shows steel buildings will stand even after massive fires all night long. Not on 9/11, 3 buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed on that day.

  10. Mike,
    U luv BBC, I get that. But BBC is known for being one-sided. No details given about the violence done to Muslims. Because BBC assumes the Muslims are the cause for unrest. They also only give quotes from few select Muslims about their attack on Christians. No comments given by Christians in that article. BBC also does not give coverage about why the Muslim countries invaded Israel in 1948. I guess they simply don’t like Jews. Wrong, its cuz the Jews went around bombing, murdering, and displacing hundreds of Palestinians from their homes. They even bragged about it later. No comments from them in BBC archives. BBC television under Alan Yentob broadcasts into almost every home all day, every day, but I bet u didn’t know that Alan Yentob is coincidentally a Jew. Your inability to understand where ur information comes from is proof of ur ignorance.

  11. Everybody jumps on the BBC for bias, it’s usually accused of being anti Christian pro muslim.

    I would say a feature of the more developed countries is that they have rejected violent tribalism. The various religions, ethnic groups, etc. are not violently attacking each other because the costs are too high. The groups are addressing their own problems. They may verbally bash other groups, but not throw bombs, burst into their meetings, etc.

    The muslims are the only large group still doing that and apparently blind to the disadvantage of it. They keep themselves in such a state of rage they can’t think straight.

  12. m bennet,

    “Your inability to understand where ur information comes from is proof of ur ignorance.” yes i don’t understand and i’m ignorant. i get that. lol.

    maybe the bbc is one-side? so does that mean that the event as reported didn’t happen? i see christian reprisal attacks reported by the bbc all the time. hindu and buddist attacks on muslims as well. in fact on the 4th of this month they reported the attacks in burma, long before this very site. i posted it for the “what if they were muslims” guys. here it is again. perhaps you missed it, or chose to IGNORE it. you know that’s the root of ingorance. lol.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18324614

    “BBC also does not give coverage about why the Muslim countries invaded Israel in 1948.” i don’t know what kind of coverage they gave in 48. i wasn’t around. sure you don’t want to ask what kind of coverage they gave the crusades as well? was this jew you is in charge now, in charge in 48? how old is this guy? maybe it was his father?

    feel free to post all the christian atrocities you can find on al-jazeera. you seem to keep forgeting i’m not a christian. so deflection has no impact on me. i think we would be better off without any religions. especially the abrahamics.

  13. damnit. american’s fault no doubt. breaking up the peaceful coexistance of muslims that existed before 9/11.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/201261965343592917.html

    bennet, “Is invading every Muslim country and killing women and children justified because of one attack on America?” no, but then again we haven’t invaded every muslim country. your hyperbole is truly astounding. aren’t there like 58 members of OIC? we have invaded 2. you on that new math again?

    “so if 9/ll was a response to decades of American invasion” what are these invasions you speak of. tried to help somalia. we did invade kuwait. guess we should have left saddam there. we probably could have gotten cheaper oil from him. let me guess, in your mind our infidel boots defiled saudi soil. you sure your not related to bin laden?

  14. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/78601.stm

    “America broke the peace first, and forced their way into a war.” lol. so we had an officer on the uboat who ordered the sinking of the lusitania? i’m sure in your mind the zimmerman telegraph was a fake. really america broke the first peace? wasn’t there a war already raging? your own sentence does’t make sense. your spin is much worse than anything i’ve seen on the bbc. i thought the assasination of archduke ferdinand broke the first peace. i got a new conspericy for ya, must have been an american agent who threw the grenade.

  15. Thanks Mike. i get tired of the muslim fairy tales. They pump themselves up with fantastic lies, it’s crazy.

  16. Interesting how nothing is ever the fault of Muslims.

    Muslims blow up other Muslims and its not the Muslims fault,its the fault of the US or maybe the devil made them do it. Yet almost all religious violence on the planet involves Muslims on one of both sides. Muslims killing Jews in Israel, Muslims killing Hindus in India, Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria, Muslims killing Muslims in Pakistan. Muslims engaging in terrorists acts in the US, UK, Bali, Nigeria,Somalia,Iraq, China, Russia, India, Spain, France. Yet none this has anything to do with Islam.Until Muslims start cleaning their own house their complaints are not going to be taken seriously.

  17. the religion of peace at war with itself. seems an oxymoron?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18526177

  18. the commonality of being followers fo “the religion of peace”, doesn’t seem to carry much weight?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18529139

  19. Hera,

    The places you mentioned have also Muslims being persecuted by the other religionits. As for Russia and France, you should know that Russia was just 2.1 million sqm during the Kievvan Rus. After it began its “Slavic Orthodox Christian” persecution and taking down of Muslim territories in the 15th century, thus it became 17.075 sqm. Not only occupation, but it displaced all Muslims from those places and also placed Slavs therein. France began to take Muslims down in the 17th century. And what they did in Algeria needs no mention if you take a look back. Even French people were angered when Algerians began to fight for their own freedom.

    Should not you be blaming Christianity for wiping out Jews and pagans (just one instance: the Northern Crusades), Muslims and other ethnic groups? Should not you be blaming Hindus for wiping out pre-Vedic civilisations and Buddhas from south Asia? Should not you be condemning Buddhists for percecuting all religions including Buddhism (Tibet)?

  20. dongo,

    “Should not you be blaming Christianity for wiping out Jews and pagans (just one instance: the Northern Crusades), Muslims and other ethnic groups? Should not you be blaming Hindus for wiping out pre-Vedic civilisations and Buddhas from south Asia? Should not you be condemning Buddhists for percecuting all religions including Buddhism (Tibet)?”

    YES!!!!

    i agree. religions should be blamed for a shit ton of atroscties. even god him/her/it’s self should be blamed. you are familiar with the great flood? the passover, sodom and…etc..etc

  21. Mike,

    You have agreed but Hera did not respond. And yes, all religions speak of peace but if their adherents have engaged in violence, then I think you should not blame the faiths. For example, if you buy an I-phone and I make it malfunction by hacking into your network service, you can barely blame Apple.

    Regarding your flood, passover, sodom queries, I can say at best that those things were done for punishing the disobedient, as far as the scriptures suggest and I don’t.

  22. Dongo,

    We are not living in the 15th century we are living in the real world of 2012 where Muslims are committing atrocities all over the world.After Muslim terror attacks in the US, UK, China, Russia, India,Israel, Pakistan, Nigeria,Bali, Spain, France, Iraq people have grown tired of the excuses.The reality in 2012 is that almost all religious violence involves Muslims on one or both sides.It isn’t the Hinuds or the Buddhist or the Amish planting bombs in Times Square and plotting to poison people in the NY subways it is Muslims.Are you really trying to justify the attack on school children in Beslan, Russia by Muslim terrorists? What is the “rationale” for Muslims blowing up Christians in their Churchs in Nigeria and Egpyt?What about the attacks on Christians by Muslims in Ethiopia a country where Muslims are a minority and where there is suppose to be freedom of religion?Why are Muslims rioting yet again over cartoons this time attacking police with knives in Germany?Is it the devil that makes Muslims engage in violence anywhere and everywhere, is it something that happened in the 15th century or is it all Bush and Obama’s fault?People are beginning to wonder if maybe just maybe the violence has something to do with Islam.

  23. dongo,

    “You have agreed but Hera did not respond. And yes, all religions speak of peace but if their adherents have engaged in violence, then I think you should not blame the faiths.” you confuse me again. first you say “Should not you be blaming Christianity for wiping out Jews and pagans (just one instance: the Northern Crusades), Muslims and other ethnic groups? Should not you be blaming Hindus for wiping out pre-Vedic civilisations and Buddhas from south Asia? Should not you be condemning Buddhists for percecuting all religions including Buddhism (Tibet)?” now you say don’t blame the faiths? of course people are to blame for their own actions. but what motivates those actions can be taken into account. shit this author is fine with blaming america for the actions of iraqis and afghans? how is that so?

    “For example, if you buy an I-phone and I make it malfunction by hacking into your network service, you can barely blame Apple.” i agree. but if the owner believes that he is not hacking into the network but operating it according to the owners manual then the manual is to blame. should i post some hadiths on how there is a great reward for those who fight in the cause of allah?

    “Regarding your flood, passover, sodom queries, I can say at best that those things were done for punishing the disobedient, as far as the scriptures suggest and I don’t.” so god’s great wisdom lead him to kill the first born egyptian male to punish the disobedient pharoh? drowned children in the flood. sent fire and brimstone on the children of sodom and gamora. don’t you think there would have been lots of children, given all the fornicating going on?

    “at best” is right?

    defame your religion. i guess the afghans are right to riot?

    9:12

    وإن نكثوا أيمانهم من بعد عهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم فقاتلوا أئمة الكفر إنهم لا أيمان لهم لعلهم ينتهون

    And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

    9:13

    ألا تقاتلون قوما نكثوا أيمانهم وهموا بإخراج الرسول وهم بدءوكم أول مرة أتخشونهم فالله أحق أن تخشوه إن كنتم مؤمنين

    Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

    9:14

    قاتلوهم يعذبهم الله بأيديكم ويخزهم وينصركم عليهم ويشف صدور قوم مؤمنين

    Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people

    9:15

    ويذهب غيظ قلوبهم ويتوب الله على من يشاء والله عليم حكيم

    And remove the fury in the believers’ hearts. And Allah turns in forgiveness to whom He wills; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.

  24. the afghans and somalis, and i’m sure the iraqis are much smarter than me. maybe even smarter than you. so how is it that it is they who are the hackers. you sure it’s not you hacking your iphone/misusing islam?

  25. Excellent article! Keep up the good work…

    However, what’s up with these trolls in the comment section – supporting wars while hating Muslims and all religions. Can they try not to contradict themselves of being ‘wanna be peace lovers’ while shooting hatred/venom at Muslims and all religions coming from as mike says ‘abrahamics'(Even though more than half of the world is that)?

    If you guys are not so willing to accept the people with different beliefs and keep on misinterpreting there religious books, by taking them out of context, detached from history behind them, you are just showing that you are not at all that ‘peace lover anti-religious people’ that you are tying to show you are, instead you doing your absolute best to spread hatred and misunderstandings with some perverse motivation driving you guys to reject any truth that can calm the people down. think logically rather emotionally and stop the war.

    Do you guys wish the NATO to wipe the world clean of ‘Ibrahamics’ using not so peaceful methods – now which category it put you into? peaceful or war mongering?

  26. mariah,

    if you are talking to me?

    “However, what’s up with these trolls in the comment section – supporting wars while hating Muslims and all religions.” so if a person disagrees with an ideology, that person must hate the ideology.
    “Can they try not to contradict themselves of being ‘wanna be peace lovers’ while shooting hatred/venom at Muslims and all religions coming” how is it a contradiction to be for peace and against the violent aspects of the abrahamic religions? so posting verses from the koran and hadiths is equivilent to “shooting hatred/venom”?
    “from as mike says ‘abrahamics’(Even though more than half of the world is that)?” oh you are talking to me. yes i’m familiar with the demographics on world religions. so what? and 90% of lemmings jump of the cliff.

    “If you guys are not so willing to accept the people with different beliefs and keep on misinterpreting there religious books, by taking them out of context, detached from history behind them, you are just showing that you are not at all that ‘peace lover anti-religious people’ that you are tying to show you are,” well first if you are grouping me anon and criley, like m has, i’m pretty sure they are both christians. i’m the only atheists, “anti-religious”, which i guess in your mind means i hate all religious people. next christmas i’ll be sure to tell my entire family i hate them all. well the historical context of the above verses deal with the truce of hudaybiyyah being broken by the quraysh. i think it is the battle of trench they are referancing. not sure. mr bennet, any help? so do you think of the half the world population who are followers of the god af abraham, how many know their own religions “historical context”? perhaps some muslims are convinced that they should treat westerners as muhammad treated the quraysh. i don’t claim to know. just questions that perplex me. that people who follow “the religion of peace” can blow themselves up along children?
    “instead you doing your absolute best to spread hatred and misunderstandings with some perverse motivation driving you guys to reject any truth that can calm the people down. think logically rather emotionally and stop the war.” lol. i think i’m the only one here thinking logically and not emotionally. again you and m give me too much credit. but i’ll give it a shot. STOP THE WAR. WELL ALL THE WARS.

    “Do you guys wish the NATO to wipe the world clean of ‘Ibrahamics’ using not so peaceful methods” who ever said that? is this your lack of emotion speaking? what are you talking about?
    “– now which category it put you into? peaceful or war mongering?” why is it that so many people only give me two choices? you a christian or a jew? i’m quite peaceful in times of peace and if we are in a war, i’m for all out war. unconditional surrender. not these half ass truces like in korea. or the armistice that “ended” ww1.

    really i think that is in line with what muhammad tought. isn’t it?

    what did he say: don’t start no shit won’t be no shit. well he does’t speak quite so clearly, or eloquently. lol. but muslims keep telling me that they aren’t supposed to go to war accept in self defence. so they can’t be peaceful if they are willing to go to war. must be war mongers by your logic.

    here’s some historical context for ya.

    http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_

    http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_

  27. mariah,

    if you are talking to me?

    “However, what’s up with these trolls in the comment section – supporting wars while hating Muslims and all religions.” so if a person disagrees with an ideology, that person must hate the ideology.
    “Can they try not to contradict themselves of being ‘wanna be peace lovers’ while shooting hatred/venom at Muslims and all religions coming” how is it a contradiction to be for peace and against the violent aspects of the abrahamic religions? so posting verses from the koran and hadiths is equivilent to “shooting hatred/venom”?
    “from as mike says ‘abrahamics’(Even though more than half of the world is that)?” oh you are talking to me. yes i’m familiar with the demographics on world religions. so what? and 90% of lemmings jump of the cliff.

    “If you guys are not so willing to accept the people with different beliefs and keep on misinterpreting there religious books, by taking them out of context, detached from history behind them, you are just showing that you are not at all that ‘peace lover anti-religious people’ that you are tying to show you are,” well first if you are grouping me anon and criley, like m has, i’m pretty sure they are both christians. i’m the only atheists, “anti-religious”, which i guess in your mind means i hate all religious people. next christmas i’ll be sure to tell my entire family i hate them all. well the historical context of the above verses deal with the truce of hudaybiyyah being broken by the quraysh. i think it is the battle of trench they are referancing. not sure. mr bennet, any help? so do you think of the half the world population who are followers of the god af abraham, how many know their own religions “historical context”? perhaps some muslims are convinced that they should treat westerners as muhammad treated the quraysh. i don’t claim to know. just questions that perplex me. that people who follow “the religion of peace” can blow themselves up along children?
    “instead you doing your absolute best to spread hatred and misunderstandings with some perverse motivation driving you guys to reject any truth that can calm the people down. think logically rather emotionally and stop the war.” lol. i think i’m the only one here thinking logically and not emotionally. again you and m give me too much credit. but i’ll give it a shot. STOP THE WAR. WELL ALL THE WARS.

    “Do you guys wish the NATO to wipe the world clean of ‘Ibrahamics’ using not so peaceful methods” who ever said that? is this your lack of emotion speaking? what are you talking about?
    “– now which category it put you into? peaceful or war mongering?” why is it that so many people only give me two choices? you a christian or a jew? i’m quite peaceful in times of peace and if we are in a war, i’m for all out war. unconditional surrender. not these half ass truces like in korea. or the armistice that “ended” ww1.

    really i think that is in line with what muhammad tought. isn’t it?

    what did he say: don’t start no shit won’t be no shit. well he does’t speak quite so clearly, or eloquently. lol. but muslims keep telling me that they aren’t supposed to go to war accept in self defence. so they can’t be peaceful if they are willing to go to war. must be war mongers by your logic.

    here’s some historical context for ya.

    http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_

    sorry for the duplicate. two links held it up in modderation.

  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

    so given all this historical context, and they clear nature of the peacefulness of islam, why all the violent muslims. do you ever read the news?

  29. Hera (the Hateful and ever conspiring wife of Zeus, the Pagan Greek God),

    Yes, we live in the 2012 world. But what you did not try to answer/willfully omitted was the Russian and French persecution of Muslims as well as taking their lands and introducing their people in those places. If you do not understand me, I make it easy for you. True, Russia began to take those lands, displacing Muslims from there and introducing Slavs there. But it just began in 15th century and continues to date. I don’t want to comment on UK as “the sun never sets on the British empire” has already set and what Britain and ilk have done to the world except bringing and settling wretches like you people on the new world landmasses allowing you to look down upon the downtrodden, everyone knows. If you call religious terrorism as a Muslim weapon now a days, then what should you call the persecution of Iraqis by American crusaders whereas there was no WMD in Iraq?
    You love Hindus and Buddhists. Yes lady, the Chinese, Thai and Burmese are Buddhists. What are they doing in their lands? Courting Muslims? In Ethiopia and Egypt, yes Muslims are committing violence and they must be beheaded for their crimes as far as I believe. And Hindus, wow, very nice. What the hell are your Indian favourite Hindus doing in India? Forget the Gujarat Massacre? If you have any sense, you would not. Even, Hindu civilians got into those massacres.
    So, you suggest Muslims remain silent on cartoons? Why? If Scum Geller, Stencher, Piles are depicted as fucking on a cross, with Geller heavily pregnant, shitting profusely and dripping enough milk from her succulent boobs onto the balls of Stencher, Piles and into the asshole of Ann “Bitch” Coulter, would you remain silent? No.

    It is not the devil who encourages Muslims to do so. It is Christians and Hindus who do and they are in fact greater devils than the devil himself. It has nothing to do with Islam.

  30. Mike,

    I said that to Hera. When she blamed Islam for Muslims’ actions, I told those in response to her. I asked her about her response and if she would blame the other faiths whose followers have also engaged in violnece? What wrong have I done and what confusion have I caused to you?

    You did not get me properly. I told about hacking into your network service and thus causing problems to you. Of course, electronics and automobiles are subject to malfunction but I mentioned about hacking and troubling your device. Why should the owner hack into network? It is often the outsiders who do so. You don’t need a doctorate degree to understand this.

    I believe Afghans are right on that.

    I hope you got your answer. The Egyptians were disobedient. Prophet Moses (PBUH) warned them many times yet not only did they ignore Him but also torture Him and His followers. The Pharaoh and the Egyptian people were also ruthlessly torturing the virtuous Israelites. And about Sodom and Gomorrha, you know it was and is a sin according to all religions of having same sex intercourse. The Bible is equally strict on that. And if the God of Israel has killed people, what can I do about that? God has also killed people with the Black Death. He continues to kill people even innocent ones. Could you do something to stop Him and will you now please go to hold Him on trial for that? If you can, please please invite me to that trial as it will be a great boost for me in my future career cases.

    You know breaking treaties is a crime even in the modern world. And in those days in Arabia as well as in the known world, this was a severe crime too. When N-Korea signs and breaks treaties, what do you do with them? Give them Nobel Prize for Chemistry or Physics?

    Of course, God can do whatever He likes. If He wants to punish or award someone, why is that disturbing you? You seem to be pretty angry on Him. Go ask and challenge Him, why waste your internet bill and eye vision here? You told you were an atheist. I guess for this He won’t be very tough with you.

  31. Dongo,

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, I do not care what the Russians did to Muslims in the 15th century or what the French did to Muslims in the 1950s. We are living in 2012 and Muslims need to adjust to a Modern world that is primarily non-Muslim. I also find it amusing that Algerian Muslims are desperate to immigrate to France. Why would they want to live under the hated French when they could live under Islamic rule in Algeria? If things are so bad in France for Muslims, why aren’t Algerian Muslims emigrating to Algeria they way French Jews are emigrating to Israel? French Jews are welcomed in Israel. Are French Muslims being welcomed in Algeria, if not why not?

    As for Muslims continuing to riot over cartoons. I don’t expect Muslims to “remain silent” they can use their own free speech rights to respond to the cartoons within the law. What they cannot do is riot, attack police with knives or tell anyone living in a secular country what cartoons they can or cannot draw.

  32. Hera,

    You need not to care either. Just take a look that Russian brutality is still going on great guns on areas which are overwhelmingly “Muslim” and that is also 2012.

    The reasons why Muslims are migrating to the West (including Algerian Muslims to France) are the same which paved the way for you “white dregs” colonise the new worlds at the gory cost of the native ones. France had probably the 2nd/3rd largest colonial empire on earth. When they were ruling those areas, did not they think that one day they would also have to face people flocking into France? In the golden days of European colonialism, though Europeans hated Muslims more than the Devil, they wold go to them, ask for favours and whenever available, take over the power. These happened in Mughal India, Middle East, Africa—everywhere.

    If you are so honest, please count all the cost in US dollars today, from the colonial takeover of power, the irrepairable damages inflicted and beign inflicted to date and take your dirty hands off Muslims. The emigration will stop, hopefully.

    Well, the Cartoons were intended to create provocation. How would you feel if a Muslims picturise Jews making the full profit out of the Holocaust (a Christian crime)? Or anyone criticises Holocaust/Israel? Then you will not remain silent even if you claim to be “secular”. Many countries have outlawed criticism of Holocaust, even the Armenian Genocides. Why? Doesn’t any criticism of these belong to freedom of speech or your fucking “secularity”?

  33. Dongo,

    I don’t care who draws a cartoon about Moses,Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus. Such cartoons are the price of living in a free society.The German group that displayed the Mohammed cartoons and sponsored a contest for new cartoons admitted that it was done as provocation.They were making a point about free speech in Germany and that people in Germany are free from religious law.German law says people are free to draw cartoons on any subject and display them. Those who oppose Mohammed cartoons have the option to protest peacefully or leave Germany and emigrate to an Islamic country.They do not have the option to impose their religion on anyone else.

    Iran has already held a Holocaust cartoon contest it was sponsored by the government of Iran.I recall one cartoon that depicted Ann Frank as a child in bed with Hitler.I suppose that cartoon was to appeal to both pedophiles and Antisemites. The government of Israel objected to the cartoons but no one rioted or attacked police officers with knives.

  34. The Iranian cartoon was so disgusting that I hate even to spit on that and its artists.

    If you do not care about others’ feelins, then you must not expect others to be sensitive to your ones. The German group who drew the cartoons, could they dare draw the Holocaust as myths or in an obscene manner? Or the Armenian genocide? Israel? No. Because, when it comes to provoking Muslims, that is your freedom of speech. But when they protest that is intolerance, barbarity, antimodernism, violence everything. In case of others, you won’t dare speaking a single word. When the Indian Muslim artist MF Hussein drew a nude portrait of Hindu goddess Saraswati, the whole Indian Hindu community, both civilians and extremists burst into protest. He was forced to leave India. On one point I tell you: why should a Muslim draw a woman’s nude picture, moreover when that female is a deity to another faith? This is not allowed in Islam. So, what the old hag swine Hussein did is totally banned in Islam. If you call such obscenity freedom of speech, I propose you: how about Pamella Geller/Debbie Schlussel being drawn as having mad sex with dogs, gorillas and pigs on a Cross during their pregnancy/labour pain? Surely they will not keep silent and begin to howl as claiming that cartoon to be “porn jihad”. I bet the artists will be sent to life imprisoment. Then their “freedom of speech” will not be upheld.

  35. Dongo,

    No one has to be silent,that’s the beauty of free speech. Those who are offended can use their own free speech rights to speak out within the law. Only savages riot and attack people with knives.The reason people don’t draw cartoons about the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide is that the Christian and Jewish victims do not riot when offended. Muslims made a HUGE mistake rioting when the first Mohammed cartoons were drawn way back in 2005. Had Muslims not behaved irrationally those cartoons would have been a one day or one week story in one country. They would have been forgotten by now instead of being published over and over again.

  36. Jewish and Christian victims do not riot indeed, but anyone can feel the aftermath if there has been such an incident of condemning their sensitivities. From your writing it seems that anything even hyper offensive can be justified in the cloak of free speech. What the Danes did was truly disgusting. And you tell Muslims made a huge mistake? You are very much commendable(!). In Islamic laws, this crime is punishable by death equally for Muslims and non-Muslims. If a Muslim depicts a non-Muslim human being in such despicable manner, the penalty is the same for him too. In that case, the Muslim will get no preference for being a Muslim because what he has done is surely punishable. And the Danish cartoons are not the first. So far as I can recollect, in 1993/4, a Jewish bitch named Tatiana Soskind drew our prophet as a pig treading on the Quran. In the commentaries of numerous Christian bodies, we are described as the disciples of the Antichrist. Our prophet is depicted as the Antichrist himself. He died in 632 but your bastard missionaries and theologians say He died in 666 and therefore He is the beast in Bible. There are countless portrayals of our Prophet and ours as utterly deplorable manners. If you say that Muslims must obey the rules of the countries where they migrated then the countries also have the duty to respect the others’ sensitivities. Moreover, these countries know it very well that majortiy of Muslims themselves are not allowed by their very own faith to depict any of the Prophets, obscene depiction is zillions of lightyears far away. And such deeds will definitely create violence. So, was not it a deliberate provocation? Hail free speech!

    If I, a Muslim abuse/harass/torture a non-Muslim, my religion would not spare me; not only will I be punished but there are provisions to make sure the punishment more terrible.

  37. There is no obligation whatsoever to respect the “sensitivities” of any group of immigrants,particularly if that groups demands conflicts with the law of the land and the rights of other citizens. Muslims who choose to immigrate to Western countries know they are immigrating to countries where there is free speech including about Islam and Mohammed. Muslims who are so sensitive that they cannot bear the sight of a cartoon should remain in the Islamic world, they have no place in free societies. As for speech that is provocative or offensive.In America leftist have said for years that the first amendment guaranteeing free speech is primarily to protect speech that is offensive.That is why it is perfectly legal to burn an American flag or a Koran in the US.

  38. If Muslims are immigrants then what are you in the new worlds? Surely illegal occupants,right? If you do not respect others, you must not expect others to respect yourselves. Hindus have also migrated to the West. Do you dare burning their holy books? Buddhist ones? Jewish? No. Because you have an inherent enmity towards Islam and Muslims which you can never give up. Show me one example where a Muslim has depicted Moses (PBUH), Virgin Mary (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH), even the disciples of Jesus negatively. You can not. We Muslims do not believe in obscene depictions of holy figures of Judaism and Christianity and consider these as grave sins. But your freedo(o)m of s(pee)ch is designed to hurt the beliefs of others. I spit on such freedom.

  39. As a matter of law in the US the Bible, Koran, Harry Potter 3 and the Dictionary are all the same. No book is above another and if they are private property they can be disposed of in the manner the owner thinks is best.

    I have seen obscene cartoons of Jesus drawn by Muslims in retaliation for the Mohammed cartoons.I personally don’t care how anyone chooses to depict Jesus, Mary, Moses, Buddha or Mohammed. People can draw whatever they want. I also believe that people who have a genuine faith aren’t going to be driven to violence by a rude cartoon. I think its a sign of weak faith if someone has to riot because another person NOT of their faith draws an offensive cartoon.If the god of that faith is real, and a cartoon is so offensive I would think the god of that faith would be capable of dealing with both the cartoon and the cartoonist.I’m willing to leave punishment up to God who knows more then any imperfect human.

  40. Hera,

    Please check your statement. Jesus (PBUH)is a highly respected figure in Islam. Muslims are totally barred from drawing any prophet and that is applicable to Jesus also for us. Therefore, Muslims can not draw obscene pictures of Jesus.

    As for leaving the punishment to God Almighty, He Himself has ordered severe punishment for blasphemy. So, when you try to escape the divinely ordained duty, you are breaching God Himself.

  41. The obscene pictures of Jesus were posted by Muslims on a “Everyone Draw Mohammed” facebook page and they were posted repeatedly.It really isn’t hard to find the pictures if someone wants to do a google search.

    Blasphemy laws were done away with a long time ago in the US and most of the Western world. So that anyone can say whatever they want about religion or any so-called icon.A “religious” person who tried to enforce blasphemy laws with “severe punishment” rather then waiting on their god to settle the matter would be a criminal under the laws of the US subject to severe punishment under the law.

  42. Do you know they were Muslims or not indeed? There are several groups like these who are not Muslims. Do you need any example? Well, just visit the website of CARM; the speaker starts by saying that he does not intend to offend Muslims but as one goes inside, s/he will find what crap is coming out of his Christian tongue. There is the website “Relgion of peace”. You just visit and find what they say. There are also the so-called ex-Muslims who will never hesitate to do such a nasty thing to hujnt fish in troubled waters.

    Hold on: how did you know that the people who posted those pictures were Muslims?

    Your bloodsucking nations always draw blood through their vocal chords saying they are founded on Judeo-Christian values? What the fuck is Judeo-Christian value? If there is really something called the fucking Judeo-Christian value, then you must follow the blasphemy laws.

  43. Hera,

    I didn’t find anything regarding your comment that “Muslims” posted obscene pics of Jesus (PBUH) on a facebook page.

    However, I give you another site which will bear proof of your Intellefucktuals’ motherfucking bastardy.
    “History of Jihad against the Mongols (1050-1258)www.historyofjihad.org/mongolia.html”.

  44. Dongo,

    The people who posted the obscene images of Jesus on the “Everyone Draw Mohammed” page said they were Muslims that’s good enough for me.You can believe that Muslims did this or not, doesn’t matter to me.The reality is the obscene images posted by Muslims were there for anyone who visited that facebook page to see.

    As for Judeo-Christian values those are values like hard work, honesty and forgiveness.The US Constitution while guaranteeing freedom of religion also separates Church and State. So that people also have the right to be free of religion thus no need for barbaric blasphemy laws.If you want blasphemy laws you should relocate to Pakistan. But be aware that threats by Muslims to charge people with blasphemy have been used to blackmail and steal from other citizens. That is no surprise when imperfect humans seek to enforce “gods law”.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>