Please, show me an erronous statement(i.e. showing no knowledge) that I have made. Of course..you can't. Sadly, most of Fuji's arguments are just repeatedly saying that I am ignorant linked with other insults with little else in the statement. Hardly giving the impression of well versed.
Violence against Muslims continues in America
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
You have made several factually incorrect statements, Czar, and when they have been pointed out to you, you have just reiterated them. Mainstream muslim sects are not implicated in terrorism. Period. You said they were, but you were wrong. It was pointed out to you, and in reply you listed off a bunch of Muslims who committed crimes without bothering to identify what sect they belonged to--in fact your own damn quote indicated that most of them were Wahhabis. When this was pointed out to you, you appeared not to know what that meant.
When I say that your position is bigotry built on ignorance I am able to say exactly what you are ignorant of, and have said. That it's bigotry driving your ignorance is evidence from your willful refusal to learn about the topic.
Is there a problem with Muslim terrorism? Plainly yes, but you are wrong when you say that it is something that relates to all Muslims. It relates to SOME, only.
If you disagree and you think all Muslims are the same then please give me a list of all the terrorists who have come from the Sufi Muslim sect.
In any case it's clear on the numbers that the group which has produced the largest number of terrorists in the world are the British. The various North Ireland terrorist as a percentage of the British population is much higher than Muslim terrorists as a percentage of all Muslims! So by your logic we plainly should ban anyone from Britain from coming to Canada. Yeah yeah yeah you say they are all from one specific group--well hey that's true of Muslims too, but you're content to ignore the difference sects, so let's ignore the different kinds of British people and just ban them all lest a terrorist sneak in.
When I say that your position is bigotry built on ignorance I am able to say exactly what you are ignorant of, and have said. That it's bigotry driving your ignorance is evidence from your willful refusal to learn about the topic.
Is there a problem with Muslim terrorism? Plainly yes, but you are wrong when you say that it is something that relates to all Muslims. It relates to SOME, only.
If you disagree and you think all Muslims are the same then please give me a list of all the terrorists who have come from the Sufi Muslim sect.
In any case it's clear on the numbers that the group which has produced the largest number of terrorists in the world are the British. The various North Ireland terrorist as a percentage of the British population is much higher than Muslim terrorists as a percentage of all Muslims! So by your logic we plainly should ban anyone from Britain from coming to Canada. Yeah yeah yeah you say they are all from one specific group--well hey that's true of Muslims too, but you're content to ignore the difference sects, so let's ignore the different kinds of British people and just ban them all lest a terrorist sneak in.
Concerning Muslims as terrorists, you say...." It relates to SOME, only." Very true. It's just that it is a much, much greater SOME than any other group.You have made several factually incorrect statements, Czar, and when they have been pointed out to you, you have just reiterated them.
Is there a problem with Muslim terrorism? Plainly yes, but you are wrong when you say that it is something that relates to all Muslims. It relates to SOME, only.
If you disagree and you think all Muslims are the same then please give me a list of all the terrorists who have come from the Sufi Muslim sect.
Once again of course, the you throw out personal insults typical of someone who has run out of valid or never had valid arguments and repeatedly uses the term ignorance as if he is somehow knowledgeable. In fact I will help you gain some knowledge straight away....
You ask specifically about "the Sufi Muslim sect." To quote below from this link....."Non-Muslims often mistake Sufism as a sect of Islam. Sufism is more accurately described as an aspect or dimension of Islam."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sufism_1.shtml
But, despite your ignorance about the subject I will answer about where the radical muslim terrorists are coming from as quoted from a credible study by someone who has taken much more time than Fuji ever would to learn their background.
His research shows that many of these terrorists -- including the September 11 hijackers and other al Qaeda members -- tend to be fairly well educated and affluent, and don't come from deeply religious backgrounds.
"The conventional wisdom, he says, being that these were poor, uneducated young men who had a long-term exposure to fundamentalist religious beliefs."
While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Sageman expanded on his research to include 162 terrorists and turned it into the groundbreaking book, "Understanding Terror Networks." He came across some compelling numbers:
• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education
• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)
• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households
Sageman calls "kinship and friendship" the main reasons young men join al Qaeda, claiming that friends and relatives brought more than 90 percent of the membership into the fold.
"They are very ordinary," he said. "They form cliques and radicalize each other.
Invariably, most of the groups that became al Qaeda followed that trajectory."
How many of these people were specifically Sufi's before...I don't know. But as seen from detailed study....These are not Wahabbis to start off with. The vast majority are ordinary Muslims converted over. Just like I have been saying. Because I am neither ignorant or bigoted. I am telling the harsh truth and will not back down from your personal insult tactics, but will continue to spread the truth.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/05/terrorists-backgrounds-defy-conventional-wisdom.html
Last edited:
Terrorists' backgrounds defy conventional wisdom
(CNN) -- With his penchant for bow ties and sport jackets, Dr. Marc Sageman looks every inch the psychiatrist and professor that he is -- not the spy he used to be, nor the agent provocateur he is now.
Sageman has emerged as something of an intellectual bomb thrower, producing a groundbreaking study about Islamic terrorists and their terror networks that challenges conventional beliefs.
His research shows that many of these terrorists -- including the September 11 hijackers and other al Qaeda members -- tend to be fairly well educated and affluent, and don't come from deeply religious backgrounds.
After the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Sageman says he saw a void in knowledge about Islamic terrorists, at that point deciding to help fill it by building on his first-hand experience with in-depth research.
"There were a lot of talking heads, I just didn't think they knew what they were talking about," he recalls. "There were no real facts."
Sageman got his first glimpse inside the world of jihadis between 1987 and 1989, when he lived in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Officially, he worked as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy. But Sageman's real job was with the Central Intelligence Agency, working with members of what was then known as the mujahideen in the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Sageman left the CIA in 1991, having previously earned a medical school degree and Ph.D. in political sociology. He then trained as a forensic psychiatrist, saying that he eventually interviewed close to 500 murderers.
That background -- examining killers' psychiatric profiles, working for the CIA and living in the combustible and terrorist-heavy region of South Central Asia -- gives him the skills and perspective to study the September 11 hijackers and their ilk, he says.
Sageman began by compiling biographical information -- using material from public sources, including court documents and investigative news reports -- on the hijackers and the few associates named in the press.
"Even at the small number of 25 [terrorists], I realized the conventional wisdom was wrong."
The conventional wisdom, he says, being that these were poor, uneducated young men who had a long-term exposure to fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Cliques becoming terror cells
While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Sageman expanded on his research to include 162 terrorists and turned it into the groundbreaking book, "Understanding Terror Networks." He came across some compelling numbers:
• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education
• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)
• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households
Sageman calls "kinship and friendship" the main reasons young men join al Qaeda, claiming that friends and relatives brought more than 90 percent of the membership into the fold.
This means recruitment is much more personal than previously thought, he says.
He cites several cases, including that of September 11 hijacker Mohammad Atta and the so-called Hamburg cell, consisting of a group of like-minded young men. As their religious views became more extreme, they cut themselves off from the outside world and became involved in terrorist activity.
"They are very ordinary," he said. "They form cliques and radicalize each other.
Invariably, most of the groups that became al Qaeda followed that trajectory."
(CNN) -- With his penchant for bow ties and sport jackets, Dr. Marc Sageman looks every inch the psychiatrist and professor that he is -- not the spy he used to be, nor the agent provocateur he is now.
Sageman has emerged as something of an intellectual bomb thrower, producing a groundbreaking study about Islamic terrorists and their terror networks that challenges conventional beliefs.
His research shows that many of these terrorists -- including the September 11 hijackers and other al Qaeda members -- tend to be fairly well educated and affluent, and don't come from deeply religious backgrounds.
After the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Sageman says he saw a void in knowledge about Islamic terrorists, at that point deciding to help fill it by building on his first-hand experience with in-depth research.
"There were a lot of talking heads, I just didn't think they knew what they were talking about," he recalls. "There were no real facts."
Sageman got his first glimpse inside the world of jihadis between 1987 and 1989, when he lived in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Officially, he worked as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy. But Sageman's real job was with the Central Intelligence Agency, working with members of what was then known as the mujahideen in the fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Sageman left the CIA in 1991, having previously earned a medical school degree and Ph.D. in political sociology. He then trained as a forensic psychiatrist, saying that he eventually interviewed close to 500 murderers.
That background -- examining killers' psychiatric profiles, working for the CIA and living in the combustible and terrorist-heavy region of South Central Asia -- gives him the skills and perspective to study the September 11 hijackers and their ilk, he says.
Sageman began by compiling biographical information -- using material from public sources, including court documents and investigative news reports -- on the hijackers and the few associates named in the press.
"Even at the small number of 25 [terrorists], I realized the conventional wisdom was wrong."
The conventional wisdom, he says, being that these were poor, uneducated young men who had a long-term exposure to fundamentalist religious beliefs.
Cliques becoming terror cells
While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Sageman expanded on his research to include 162 terrorists and turned it into the groundbreaking book, "Understanding Terror Networks." He came across some compelling numbers:
• About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education
• About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)
• Most came from middle or upper-middle class households
Sageman calls "kinship and friendship" the main reasons young men join al Qaeda, claiming that friends and relatives brought more than 90 percent of the membership into the fold.
This means recruitment is much more personal than previously thought, he says.
He cites several cases, including that of September 11 hijacker Mohammad Atta and the so-called Hamburg cell, consisting of a group of like-minded young men. As their religious views became more extreme, they cut themselves off from the outside world and became involved in terrorist activity.
"They are very ordinary," he said. "They form cliques and radicalize each other.
Invariably, most of the groups that became al Qaeda followed that trajectory."
The risk from terrorists from Northern Ireland on anywhere except for their local area is exceptionally low. I can't think of one plot outside of Britain in the last decade. The risk of mass casualty muslim attacks......HUGE. And that from an extremely small segment of the population with credible interest in radiological, biological and chemical attacks along with other attempted attacks such as multiple airliner explosions. And much more capability of carrying out successful attacks due to the willingness of suicide.In any case it's clear on the numbers that the group which has produced the largest number of terrorists in the world are the British. The various North Ireland terrorist as a percentage of the British population is much higher than Muslim terrorists as a percentage of all Muslims! So by your logic we plainly should ban anyone from Britain from coming to Canada. Yeah yeah yeah you say they are all from one specific group--well hey that's true of Muslims too, but you're content to ignore the difference sects, so let's ignore the different kinds of British people and just ban them all lest a terrorist sneak in.
Northern Irish attack risk in the west outside of source trouble area......near zero percent(and limited damage against specific target if successful)
Radical islam attack risk in the west.......near 100% likelyhood in most countries(and mass casualties of random persons desired).
Every group has a risk potential. I propose banning importation only of those that stand out way above the rest. Except for those in denial, we all know which group has the common background tie that binds.
Of course...this is obvious to most of us.
Last edited:
Fuji has this unfounded fear that the IRA is out to kill him. He is more likely to be killed by someone of another religion than a Catholic Irishman or woman.
Czar, pasting stuff you don't understand doesn't cut it. I'm still waiting for your list of Sufi terrorists. You also are attempting to sidestep the question--perhaps you are too ignorant to even realize that you are? Pointing out that the 9/11 attackers were largely from affluent families, etc., is NOT the same thing as saying they came from a mainstream sect. Osama bin Laden came from an affluent *Wahhabi* family. The Wahhabis aren't the only extremists out there, but the point is that mainstream Islam does not promote, encourage, justify, or believe in this kind of stuff, it's some particular extremist sects of the religion that are pushing the jihadi line.
I'd also like to know who these "162 terrorists" were. Did he include people who carried out IRA style terrorist acts against occupation forces in their home countries? Or was that list of 162 only jihad style terrorists who went overseas to attack others for ideological reasons?
There are many oppressed groups that turn to terrorist methods around the world, and most of them are Christian. The IRA for example. It's just as reprehensible, but the IRA never really went overseas to attack others ideologically, and neither do, for example, the Maoist oriented Muslim groups that are fighting insurgencies in places like Indonesia. If they're being counted in the 162, it's mixing up different things. You should include the IRA in that case.
But there are indeed a group of Muslims who feel inclined to go overseas and attack targets in foreign countries. These are the ones we are mostly worried about in the context of this discussion, and they tend to belong to extremist religious sects.
I'd also like to know who these "162 terrorists" were. Did he include people who carried out IRA style terrorist acts against occupation forces in their home countries? Or was that list of 162 only jihad style terrorists who went overseas to attack others for ideological reasons?
There are many oppressed groups that turn to terrorist methods around the world, and most of them are Christian. The IRA for example. It's just as reprehensible, but the IRA never really went overseas to attack others ideologically, and neither do, for example, the Maoist oriented Muslim groups that are fighting insurgencies in places like Indonesia. If they're being counted in the 162, it's mixing up different things. You should include the IRA in that case.
But there are indeed a group of Muslims who feel inclined to go overseas and attack targets in foreign countries. These are the ones we are mostly worried about in the context of this discussion, and they tend to belong to extremist religious sects.
Sadly, there are probably hundreds, thousands of girls and women murdered in the U.S. and elsewhere every year. Why did this one capture Fuji's imagination? Is it just another excuse to bash the U.S.?
Oh I see, so do you also just consider the 9/11 attack a blip? I mean, there were some 16000 murders that year and in fact MORE people were murdered in 2002, so it wasn't even all that significant to the murder rate. Why single out terrorism? Why single out hate crime?Sadly, there are probably hundreds, thousands of girls and women murdered in the U.S. and elsewhere every year. Why did this one capture Fuji's imagination? Is it just another excuse to bash the U.S.?
Obviously, 9/11 was a major event. If you are so concerned about the murder of women, then start threads on other women who have been attacked or murdered. How about schoolgirls having acid thrown in their faces?Oh I see, so do you also just consider the 9/11 attack a blip? I mean, there were some 16000 murders that year and in fact MORE people were murdered in 2002, so it wasn't even all that significant to the murder rate. Why single out terrorism? Why single out hate crime?
What makes you think this was a hate crime? Rush to judgment? Muslim women found dead in their homes is sadly not that unusual.
Hate crimes against Muslims in the Untied States are sadly not that unusual.Obviously, 9/11 was a major event. If you are so concerned about the murder of women, then start threads on other women who have been attacked or murdered. How about schoolgirls having acid thrown in their faces?
What makes you think this was a hate crime? Rush to judgment? Muslim women found dead in their homes is sadly not that unusual.
Actually, I understand everything I posted and once again you just make your usual statements of ignorance without anything to back up your claim. And then you do the old tactic of asking questions that are not practically answerable and try to change subject by in this case going on about the IRA, a now defunct organization.Czar, pasting stuff you don't understand doesn't cut it. I'm still waiting for your list of Sufi terrorists. You also are attempting to sidestep the question--perhaps you are too ignorant to even realize that you are? Pointing out that the 9/11 attackers were largely from affluent families, etc., is NOT the same thing as saying they came from a mainstream sect. Osama bin Laden came from an affluent *Wahhabi* family. The Wahhabis aren't the only extremists out there, but the point is that mainstream Islam does not promote, encourage, justify, or believe in this kind of stuff, it's some particular extremist sects of the religion that are pushing the jihadi line.
I'd also like to know who these "162 terrorists" were. Did he include people who carried out IRA style terrorist acts against occupation forces in their home countries? Or was that list of 162 only jihad style terrorists who went overseas to attack others for ideological reasons?
There are many oppressed groups that turn to terrorist methods around the world, and most of them are Christian. The IRA for example. It's just as reprehensible, but the IRA never really went overseas to attack others ideologically, and neither do, for example, the Maoist oriented Muslim groups that are fighting insurgencies in places like Indonesia. If they're being counted in the 162, it's mixing up different things. You should include the IRA in that case.
But there are indeed a group of Muslims who feel inclined to go overseas and attack targets in foreign countries. These are the ones we are mostly worried about in the context of this discussion, and they tend to belong to extremist religious sects.
I have shown a credible study which is available in more detail about the background of a large number of terrorists. Bottom line, the came from ordinary backgrounds. And they will continue to do so in the future. And the more there are around here, the more ordinay background people of that religion will become terorists. And they will continue to be the most threatening of all despite the small population.
That's just the way it is. I know you don't like the harsh truth for whatever reason. There are lots of others like you but the truth is what it is. Time to deal with it...Keep em out.
There may very well be more Christians as terrorists. I don't know. You don't back up with any evidence or provide any links but once again, start counting all the plots and ask where they are coming from. We all know. And so do you. And now I have given all of you a way to find a detailed study on who these muslim terrorists really are and their background.
http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Marc-Sageman/dp/0812238087
I suggest you read it so you know as much about this subject as I do.
And rock has this knee jerk response any time anyone tries to say anything negative about the IRA.Fuji has this unfounded fear that the IRA is out to kill him. He is more likely to be killed by someone of another religion than a Catholic Irishman or woman.
Fuji loves to attack the Irish. To quote a famous Terbie: "Fuji's knee jerk reaction is to attack the Irish when he is losing the debate".try to change subject by in this case going on about the IRA, a now defunct organization.
You were asked to provide evidence that mainstream Muslim sects were involved in terrorism. You responded by posting something different, a study showing that the attackers were often affluent, well educated, and so on. Not what you were asked to provide. The reality is this: You don't know a goddamn thing about this topic, and whenever you're asked something, you go hit google, find some vaguely related link, and paste it here. But it doesn't really answer the point, and in the end it just highlights how ignorant you are.I have shown a credible study which is available in more detail about the background of a large number of terrorists.
I am still waiting for you to tell me which terrorists were Sufis.
Not the Irish. Hypocrites. I know that if I bring up the IRA you will paint yourself into a corner and make a complete fool of yourself. You'll go about defending their terrorist attacks and saying it's what's necessary, then you'll turn around and point your bigoted finger at Muslims. It will be hilarious, and it will be an effective way of knocking you out of the debate. Everyone will see you for what you are--a bigoted terrorist sympathizer.Fuji loves to attack the Irish. To quote a famous Terbie: "Fuji's knee jerk reaction is to attack the Irish when he is losing the debate".
Sorry Fuji, a typical tactic when youare losing an argument very badly(and yes you are) is to try to bring in useless stuff like you bringing in the IRA( a group long out of the terrorism business) and asking impossible to answer questions such as what is the specific background of certain people.You were asked to provide evidence that mainstream Muslim sects were involved in terrorism. You responded by posting something different, a study showing that the attackers were often affluent, well educated, and so on. Not what you were asked to provide. The reality is this: You don't know a goddamn thing about this topic, and whenever you're asked something, you go hit google, find some vaguely related link, and paste it here. But it doesn't really answer the point, and in the end it just highlights how ignorant you are.
I am still waiting for you to tell me which terrorists were Sufis.
All the information necessary is in the book I linked to. I don't need to investigate the background of terrorists. It has been done already by a credible person. And all for under 30 dollars.
http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Terror-Networks-Marc-Sageman/dp/0812238087
Here are some reviews...
"One of the most original and innovative social science studies ever conducted on how individuals are driven to join terrorist organizations."—ForeWord Magazine
"The most sophisticated analysis of global jihadis yet published. . . . His conclusions have demolished much of the conventional wisdom about who joins jihadi groups."—William Dalrymple, New York Review of Books
And of course another study done.....
Following is analysis of the radicalization of Europe’s Muslim diasporas. It is
estimated that some 80 percent of new recruits to the global Salafi jihad are children
and grandchildren of Muslim émigrés who have felt alienated from their host cultures.
http://www.humansecuritygateway.com...adicalizationTerrorismUSMuslimCommunities.pdf
More reason than ever to Keep em Out. After all, how are supposed to check up on unborn children of these people. Bring in the Bhuddists, Hindus Christians and whatever the Chinese are.
Czar you are still evading the point.
1. You STILL have not provided any evidence of your claim that mainstream sects contribute to terrorism, and
2. You STILL have not named a single Sufi who engaged in terrorism
You can keep repeating your citation as many times as you want, it doesn't answer either points. I agree with your citation--the average terrorist is in fact affluent, educated, etc., and not from a poor or oppressed family. However, mainstream sects are NOT generating terrorists. It's the extreme sects that do that.
Kratz--you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, so please, don't bother rendering any comment on a topic which I'm sure you're even less informed about than Czar.
1. You STILL have not provided any evidence of your claim that mainstream sects contribute to terrorism, and
2. You STILL have not named a single Sufi who engaged in terrorism
You can keep repeating your citation as many times as you want, it doesn't answer either points. I agree with your citation--the average terrorist is in fact affluent, educated, etc., and not from a poor or oppressed family. However, mainstream sects are NOT generating terrorists. It's the extreme sects that do that.
Kratz--you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, so please, don't bother rendering any comment on a topic which I'm sure you're even less informed about than Czar.
LOL I don't even think you comprehend what you just wrote, as it directly refutes your own claim. I didn't notice that before... LOL. You're a parody of yourself!Following is analysis of the radicalization of Europe’s Muslim diasporas. It is
estimated that some 80 percent of new recruits to the global Salafi jihad are children
and grandchildren of Muslim émigrés who have felt alienated from their host cultures.
By the way the article you cited also overall refutes your view. Go Czar! I don't even have to debate you, you're doing a fine job of debating yourself.
