Militants attack Christians in Egypt, killing at least 28

[ParanoiD84]

What Boko Haram is doing has nothing to do with religion despite what they claim.

Still https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Christia...#/Contemporary

The "they are worse" doesn't really fly IMHO. Are the Christian Terrorist less evil cause they attack less? Have you considered that it's just less newsworthy to report on? Any idea what extremist Jews have done?

According to the FBI there are more non muslim terrorist in the US.. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mus...merica/5333619

The problem is that you just talk about the us when pretty much all terrorism is outside of that.

And yes its religion both boko haram and al shabbab and what not wants to overwhrow the governments and install pure islamic states with sharia laws. How is that not about religion?

[Sliske]

Seems more like a culture thing more than religion. There's over 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, shouldn't there be more widespread attacks every day in every country if the problem is just religion?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/a...aspx?Yr=Last30

[Amorac]

The problem is that you just talk about the us when pretty much all terrorism is outside of that.

And yet there have been plenty of Christian/hindu/jewish/etc terror attacks, just because no western paper reports them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Why are muslim terrorist worse? Just because you hear more about them make the others less evil?

And yes its religion both boko haram and al shabbab and what not wants to overwhrow the governments and install pure islamic states with sharia laws. How is that not about religion?

And the third point that I think is important to realise is that there are plenty of Christians who are part of Boko Haram because it's a job.
http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20150711-dis...ias-boko-haram

The problem is singling out a single group and blame everything on them. Used to be Jews..

But hey, let's ignore bad people cause they do it in name of a good religion...

Anyway:
It's only about 21 per cent of the attacks have been done by Islamic fundamentalists.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...5/s4353664.htm

Other links to consider;

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/hundreds...hinduism-in-up
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...UN-report.html
http://www.newindianexpress.com/stat...m-1540384.html
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/...her-surprises/
http://www.datagraver.com/case/peopl...rope-1970-2015
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....ID=FB-MEN-main
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.prem...ource=Facebook
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1079471/world
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-offices-paris
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/je...ent-1637997442
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...e-sunni-arabs/
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0628-0009.html

It almost seems you are only against Muslim terrorist. I am against Terrorists.

[ParanoiD84]

And yet there have been plenty of Christian/hindu/jewish/etc terror attacks, just because no western paper reports them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Why are muslim terrorist worse? Just because you hear more about them make the others less evil?



And the third point that I think is important to realise is that there are plenty of Christians who are part of Boko Haram because it's a job.
http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20150711-dis...ias-boko-haram

The problem is singling out a single group and blame everything on them. Used to be Jews..

But hey, let's ignore bad people cause they do it in name of a good religion...

Anyway:
It's only about 21 per cent of the attacks have been done by Islamic fundamentalists.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...5/s4353664.htm

Other links to consider;

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/hundreds...hinduism-in-up
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...UN-report.html
http://www.newindianexpress.com/stat...m-1540384.html
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/...her-surprises/
http://www.datagraver.com/case/peopl...rope-1970-2015
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....ID=FB-MEN-main
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.prem...ource=Facebook
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1079471/world
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-offices-paris
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/je...ent-1637997442
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...e-sunni-arabs/
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...0628-0009.html

It almost seems you are only against Muslim terrorist. I am against Terrorists.

Then you have not checken my posts i always condemn all terrorism its just that we get one far more its not even close and especially on these forums its mostly threads about one kind. So kind of hard condeming stuff where there is barely none.

[Noomz]

Islamism, and other theocratic ideologies, are a disease on this world.

If it ain't religion, it's politics. If it ain't politics, it's economics. If it aint economics, it's which football team you like. And so on.
Ignorance is the problem, not religion.

[Amorac]

Then you have not checken my posts i always condemn all terrorism its just that we get one far more its not even close and especially on these forums its mostly threads about one kind. So kind of hard condeming stuff where there is barely none.

Right, and if you look around more and not just read what (western (christian)) media is feeding you it is apparently not "Islamic" terrorist groups.

People defecting from ISIS seem to claim there is nothing Islamic about them IIRC.

Most groups only use religion as a propaganda device. Nothing Christian about what Christian terror groups do... Same for Hindu and whatever religion is used as an excuse.

Boko Haram interest is either creating a dictatorship or they just want to enrich themselves and use extreme Islamic ideas to "justify" their fights so they can "recruit"(brainwash) soldiers and hire mercenaries. And they seem to pay well, for that region standards..

People need to stop believing in Islamic/Christian/Hindu terrorist groups and just call them terrorists. As I said, nothing they do is about religion. They claim they do but I doubt they believe it themselves (at least the leadership).

/edit

How ISIS is so Muslim/Islamic;
ISIS is not about submitting to Islam. Rather, ISIS is of the persuasion that you must either solely submit to ISIS, or die
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-o..._10825028.html

[Thresh1]

Is religion evil?

Atheist psychologists Scott O. Lilienfeld and Rachel Ammirati advise ,"Contrary to the forceful assertions of some prominent atheist authors (e.g., Dawkins 2006; Dennett 2006), however, the data consistently point to a negative association between religiosity and criminal behavior and a positive association between religiosity and prosocial behavior." "...Steven Weinberg’s 1999 assertion, endorsed by Dawkins (2006, p. 249), that “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion” (see Lindner 2005). This proposition runs counter to an enormous body of social psychological data demonstrating that many, if not most, good people can be led to perform unethical acts with no religious coercion."

"...there is no statistical association between religiosity and criminality.”
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/would_...e_to_the_deba/

Non-religious historians Will and Ariel Durant write, "Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he sees it functioning, and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age. .. There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."

Sociologist Epidemiologist Jeff Levin notes that there have been over 4,000 studies of the effects of religion on mental and somatic health since the 19th century. These studies, which are published across every major health journal, cover all major health and illness categories. The research findings have consistently shown, for over 60 years, that religion is a statistically significant determinant of overall mental health, positive well-being, and healthy psychological functioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R34B...sEHrKZUKiZ5J7Z

[Knolan]

Anyway:
It's only about 21 per cent of the attacks have been done by Islamic fundamentalists.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...5/s4353664.htm

Very fishy that there is this "fundamentalists" wording there.

This definitely doesn't reflect to the reality of today, just look at a random month of terrorist attacks nowadays (the data from this link is from 2014) and tell me if it is near 20%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...idents_in_2017

[Damajin]

Doesn't that just reinforce that it's not religion, but culture/region?

They're synonymous, just as there is no fundamental difference between Islam as a religion and Islam as a sociopolitical governing principle.

[Deleted]

Sectarian murder.

[Thresh1]

They're synonymous, just as there is no fundamental difference between Islam as a religion and Islam as a sociopolitical governing principle.

I don't think the cause can be boiled down to one thing; that's simplistic. But yes, culture and religion are intertwined, but they are not synonymous.

[Jaylock]

At the present time. But a quick check of history paints a different story.

Who cares what happened in the past, lets focus on the right here and now. And killing anyone in the name of a belief system is wrong no matter what belief system it is.

[Amorac]

Very fishy that there is this "fundamentalists" wording there.

This definitely doesn't reflect to the reality of today, just look at a random month of terrorist attacks nowadays (the data from this link is from 2014) and tell me if it is near 20%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...idents_in_2017

Why is the wording fundamentalist fishy? Aren't groups like ISIS labeled as that? (Note http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-o..._10825028.html and earlier link that states Boko Haram has Christian members..)

I know the data is old, but not old enough to blame all terrorist attacks on "Islamic" groups. My point is that most if not all religious groups just use it as an excuse and propaganda measure and it is dangerous to put all followers of a certain belief in the same ballpark because of those terrorists.

https://discover-the-truth.com/news/ has a lot of stuff showing it's not just "Islamic" groups still. But to be honest, all sites, including the wiki's and mine need to be taken with some salt as they are either biased or far to easy to edit.

I am not denying so called Islamic groups are a big threat, and yes, perhaps they have overtaken it world wide. Still, I don't believe for a second they fight for Allah (Or God or Brahma or whatever deity is centered in any religion used), just for their own personal gains or even amusement.

You can't call Islam an evil religion when Christian groups exist doing the same stuff as Islamic groups just because "they do it more", in that case, ancient history has a lot to show how peaceful Christianity can be.

[I Push Buttons]

Very fishy that there is this "fundamentalists" wording there.

This definitely doesn't reflect to the reality of today, just look at a random month of terrorist attacks nowadays (the data from this link is from 2014) and tell me if it is near 20%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...idents_in_2017

I was looking at the study that interview referenced earlier, its the 2015 Global Terrorism Index.

1. Its incidents, not victims. ISIL (6100), Boko Haram (6600), and the Taliban (3500), all Islamist, killed a combined 16000+ people in 2014. Over half of all people killed by terrorists in 2014. And that is only the three most deadly groups, there are dozens more similar Islamist groups.

2. They don't include lone wolves in the figure of the 21%. So attacks where a lone person/small groups of people do something and claims to do it on behalf of a group/ideology... They don't count that as part of the group/ideology, but as a separate category of lone wolves. The Boston Marathon attack, for example. Those two brothers held extremist Islamic views and learned to do what they did via an AQ affiliate... But the study counts them as a lone wolf attack, not an Islamic Fundamentalist attack.

[Damajin]

I don't think the cause can be boiled down to one thing; that's simplistic. But yes, culture and religion are intertwined, but they are not synonymous.

Seems you don't understand Islam and other Eastern religions all that well.

[Thresh1]

Seems you don't understand Islam and other Eastern religions all that well.

Why would you say such a thing? Religion is definitely different than culture, by definition.

[Amorac]

I was looking at the study that interview referenced earlier, its the 2015 Global Terrorism Index.

1. Its incidents, not victims. ISIL (6100), Boko Haram (6600), and the Taliban (3500), all Islamist, killed a combined 16000+ people in 2014. Over half of all people killed by terrorists in 2014. And that is only the three most deadly groups, there are dozens more similar Islamist groups.

2. They don't include lone wolves in the figure of the 21%. So attacks where a lone person/small groups of people do something and claims to do it on behalf of a group/ideology... They don't count that as part of the group/ideology, but as a separate category of lone wolves. The Boston Marathon attack, for example. Those two brothers held extremist Islamic views and learned to do what they did via an AQ affiliate... But the study counts them as a lone wolf attack, not an Islamic Fundamentalist attack.

Interesting stuff, but note, the pfd linked does state "Politically motivated terrorists acts account for the most number of deaths in the West.Lone wolf attacks motivated by Islamic fundamentalism accounted for 19 per cent of total deaths." and figure 30 shows a decline in lone wolf muslim and Racial and religious supremacists attacks.

Also "Islamic fundamentalism was not the main cause of terrorism in the West over the last nine years. Eighty per cent of deaths by lone wolf terrorists in the West were driven by right wing extremism, nationalism, antigovernment sentiment and political extremism and other forms of supremacy."

The highest attacks and/or deaths seem to be in the country where the (ISIS/Boko Haram etc) are based. (See page 10)
1 Iraq 99% of the populaton is Muslim
2 Afghanistan 99% of the populaton is Muslim
3 Nigeria 50% of the populaton is Muslim
4 Pakistan 96% of the populaton is Muslim
5 Syria 85% of the populaton is Muslim
6 India 15% of the populaton is Muslim

See also http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-cont...dex-2016.2.pdf
- Nearly half of all terrorist attacks occurred in four countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
- Terrorism is highly concentrated, with 57 per cent of all deaths since 2000 occurring in four countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.
- The overall severity of terrorism has been increasing since 2004, but appears to have peaked in2014
- ISIL ATTACKS AND PLOTS IN THE OECD BY COUNTRY, 2014 TO MID-2016 : Nearly a third of all attacks in the OECD were in the United States. (Note FBI stating most terrorists attacks were not from Muslim extremist)
- Terrorism in India (nr 6 in 2015 dropped to 8 in 2016 document) is characterised by communist, Islamists and separatist groups. Communist terrorist groups are by far the most frequent perpetrators and the main cause of terrorism deaths in India.

[Knolan]

I was looking at the study that interview referenced earlier, its the 2015 Global Terrorism Index.

1. Its incidents, not victims. ISIL (6100), Boko Haram (6600), and the Taliban (3500), all Islamist, killed a combined 16000+ people in 2014. Over half of all people killed by terrorists in 2014. And that is only the three most deadly groups, there are dozens more similar Islamist groups.

2. They don't include lone wolves in the figure of the 21%. So attacks where a lone person/small groups of people do something and claims to do it on behalf of a group/ideology... They don't count that as part of the group/ideology, but as a separate category of lone wolves. The Boston Marathon attack, for example. Those two brothers held extremist Islamic views and learned to do what they did via an AQ affiliate... But the study counts them as a lone wolf attack, not an Islamic Fundamentalist attack.

Definitely there was something fishy there, thank you for checking it out.

Why is the wording fundamentalist fishy? Aren't groups like ISIS labeled as that? (Note http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-o..._10825028.html and earlier link that states Boko Haram has Christian members..)

I know the data is old, but not old enough to blame all terrorist attacks on "Islamic" groups. My point is that most if not all religious groups just use it as an excuse and propaganda measure and it is dangerous to put all followers of a certain belief in the same ballpark because of those terrorists.

https://discover-the-truth.com/news/ has a lot of stuff showing it's not just "Islamic" groups still. But to be honest, all sites, including the wiki's and mine need to be taken with some salt as they are either biased or far to easy to edit.

I am not denying so called Islamic groups are a big threat, and yes, perhaps they have overtaken it world wide. Still, I don't believe for a second they fight for Allah (Or God or Brahma or whatever deity is centered in any religion used), just for their own personal gains or even amusement.

You can't call Islam an evil religion when Christian groups exist doing the same stuff as Islamic groups just because "they do it more", in that case, ancient history has a lot to show how peaceful Christianity can be.

They absolutely are doing those stuff in the name of Allah (or God). They may have a different interpretation of the faith than other people, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it.

The difference is not who is doing it more, but rather who is condemning it more. As we pointed earlier in this thread, it it not hard to find pools of your everyday muslins expressing their opinions on terror attacks and you get a very sizable portion supporting them. You won't find the same on other religions, not only most christians do not commit terror acts but also they will be horrified by the idea that someone did so in the name of Jesus.

I remember seeing this image a lot after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and there is a lot truth in it:

[mauserr]

fucking christians and their bullshit

(Infracted)

[PACOX]

Doesn't that just reinforce that it's not religion, but culture/region?

Thats only if you're trying to make a logical observation.