Much of liberal America needs to accept the pervasiveness of radical Islam and stop denying reality and making false equivalencies.

That's a fair point, even if religion was forgotten tomorrow there still might very well be a similar amount of terrorism becayse of socioeconomic and political factors. However, radicalism to me means more than just terrorism. Advocating for the death penalty for those that leave the religion is extremism, so is saying insulting the religion should be a criminal offense.

Advocating for the death penalty for those that leave the religion is extremism, so is saying insulting the religion should be a criminal offense.

So if your accusations extend beyond terrorism, this charge must be leveled against everyone (not just liberal America). Saudi Arabia has been a close US ally in the Middle East and they are guilty of the crimes you have outlined. Republican and Democratic administrations have both closely aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia.

My view is about American's view of Muslims across the world. I'm not talking about American views of American Muslims, I guess I should have been more clear.

That's not the way it was worded. They said it was justified because of X, that's not even close to: "how would they justify their actions". I guarantee if we look at the original survey it wouldn't have asked the latter. You're doing what the Democrats do. Don't make excuses. If this were one cherry picked survey fine, but this is consistent with a hundred others.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ Among Muslims who want Sharia law, which in these regions is most (56-99% depending on the country): 76% of Muslims surveyed in South Asia and 56% in North Africa and the Middle East think those leaving Islam should be executed.

Regardless of slight statistical inaccuracies or nit picking, the end result is very significant percentages of Muslims, hundreds of millions, who hold incredibly dangerous and backwards beliefs. There is not an equivalent for this among Christians.

Unfortunately, there's no way for us to verify either of our ideas, so your guess is really as good as mine. That's why we can't trust this information.

Actually it's not. We have a million other surveys that show I'm right. Show me surveys that show 40-70% of Christians want the death for leaving the religion.

Either Pew and every other polling company is lying and inventing these polls, or I'm right. We can factor in a ton of methodological and polling error and I would still be right. Even if only 20% of Muslims want the death penalty for leaving the religion that's still appalling.

I don't feel like you understand the ways in which statistics can be misleading. Here's an article on the topic:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201111/how-lie-statistics

The "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" episode of the West Wing is also a great instructive piece on this topic. Here's a clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7FJFuuvxpI

I understand that. You're not understanding that that isn't the case here. There are surveys asking: "Do you agree with the following statement: Apostasty should be punishable by death." And then 40-70% of Muslims in any given country will answer: "yes"

And again, if it were one poll or one survey then you might be correct. But it's not possible that a hundred different polls all came to roughly the exact same answer unless they are all conspiring together.

What surveys are you referring to? Can you link to them?

38,000 in person interviews: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

84% want Sharia law in South Asia 74% in the Middle East

76% of those in South Asia who want Sharia law want those leaving the religion to be executed.

56% say the same in the Middle East.

At least 1/4 do not reject terrorism aimed at civilians.

Only 57% have a negative view of al Qaeda in 2013: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

Only half have a negative view of the Taliban and less than half have a negative view of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Suicide bombings against Americans viewed as justified by half of people in Pakistan and 70% in Jordan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls

http://www.people-press.org/2004/03/16/a-year-after-iraq-war/

About half of the populations of various Middle Eastern countries had a positive view of Bin Laden.

1/3 of British Muslims 16-24 want Sharia law. 36% think those that leave Islam should be executed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion

Suicide bombings against Americans viewed as justified by half of people in Pakistan and 70% in Jordan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls

Interesting, for some reason you reported the numbers from 2004, and neglected to mention the more recent numbers that were just a few paragraphs away in the same article:

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified.

43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified

69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified

Yes, when the Iraq War started, many people in nearby countries had an initial response of fear and anger. Only 3 years later, the numbers are wildly different, meaning that most people didn't feel that way anymore.

It's so easy to only pick out the numbers you want to see. In that same article, there's another great example of how numbers like these can be misleading:

According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives"

Sounds bad, right? 1/5 of British Muslims sympathize with the terrorist attack. That must mean they agree with it! Well, wait. That wasn't the whole sentence. Here's what the article actually says:

According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives", although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the attack.

What if all they'd asked was the first question, but not the second one? Or if a news article reporting on the poll decided to only report the 20% statistic but not the 99% one? This stuff happens all the time. That's why the NOP poll you referred to in your OP should be completely discarded. If all you have are secondary sources, you really have no idea what those numbers are saying.

Those 2007 numbers aren't good either.

I don't know ICM but that 99% number is wildly inconsistent with all the other polls. It also doesn't change the fact that Pew, which is reputable, found in poll after poll that Muslims held incredibly extreme beliefs such as death for those who leave the religion and widespread support for al Qaeda. It doesn't change the fact that most of the deaths from terrorist attacks in the West are from Muslims even though they make up a small percentage of the population.

You don't need to call them "Islamic extremists". I don't care what word or term is used. What needs to be acknowledged is it's a pervasive problem that extends to more than just a few thousand fighters for ISIS and other groups. The number of Muslims with extreme beliefs is at least one hundred million.

The Democrats don't adequately address our seemingly unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They don't adequately respond to Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Calling it racist and saying we shouldn't ban all Muslims for the actions and beliefs of a few is disingenuous. They don't adequately address the concerns of American voters who see them as more concerned with political correctness than the lives of Americans.

Let me try to break apart what you are saying to understand better.

The Democrats don't adequately address our seemingly unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Our support isn't unconditional. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan were vehemently opposed to Obama's Iran deal because it was an attempt to extricate us from their regional Sunni/Shite proxy wars. Obama sent forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden despite the Pakistan's government wishes.

They don't adequately respond to Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Calling it racist and saying we shouldn't ban all Muslims for the actions and beliefs of a few is disingenuous.

His ban is stupid, racist, ineffective, and preying on stereotypes of refugees. The humanitarian crisis in Syria/Iraq is the culmination of decades of Neocons selling American weaponry to one side of a conflict or the other. It is irresponsible to ignore the humanitarian crisis and will breed another generation of radicalized Muslims if we don't take steps to asylum to the innocents fleeing war.

They don't adequately address the concerns of American voters who see them as more concerned with political correctness than the lives of Americans.

About 100 people were killed by what could be described as a Muslim extremist attempting to carry out a terror attack in the 8 years of Obama's presidency. I'm even including people like the Orlando shooter who pledged alleigiance to Hezzbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. even though those groups are at odds with each other.

Now not to try and run actuarial tables but in the time since you have posted this CMV 200-300 people have died in traffic accidents, 10-12 people have shot themselves accidentally with a gun, 2-3 veterans have committd suicide, etc. The violent homicide for this year will likely be around 15,000 deaths commited by Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, etc. You have a greater chance of being killed by a falling TV or bookcase than a Muslim.

Democrats have spent hundreds of billions curtailling our privacy, glassing wide swaths of the Middle East, and you think they aren't doing enough? Please describe what could possibly make you feel more safe?

Almost everything you wrote is just a straw man or wildly off point. The post was never about me needing to feel more safe and I specifically stated in another comment I don't worry about dying in a terrorist attack and I'm far more concerned about dying in a car accident.

Our support isn't literally unconditional but it's continued despite their spreading and tolerating extremism.

It's not a stereotype or racist that Muslims disproportionately hold backwards beliefs incompatible with our values and they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists. The question is if it's worth the negatives.

It's not a stereotype or racist that Muslims disproportionately hold backwards beliefs incompatible with our values and they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists. The question is if it's worth the negatives.

Ok I'm really struggling on what exactly your CMV is trying to say. Help me understand so I can come to your point of view. Let me lay out how I look at it.

What is incompatible with "our values" when a Muslim community raising 100k to repair damage done to a Jewish cemetery?

and

What part of 9000 missile attacks on Muslim terrorist cells seems like political correctness? Are we providing a safe space for Muslim radicals by incinerating their homes and families?

Knowing that Saudi Arabia and the average Muslim man on the street won't instantly moderate the day after Democrats pubically call their belief/values backwards, inferior and incompatible with ours. Please explain to me what stance you want Democrats to differently take that would be productive and improve things?

Believing that leaving the religion should be punishable by death, and criticizing the religion should be a crime is incompatible with Western values.

Where have you ever heard a Democrat that has publically advocated or defended death for apotatsy in Islam?

Democrats haven't defended that belief. They deny that Muslims hold extreme beliefs at a rate higher than that of Christians. If I pointed out the high number of Muslims who advocate for the death penalty for leaving the religion, a typical response from the left would be: well Christians believe crazy stuff to.

The problem is, it's a false equivalency. Christians believe in crazy and extreme stuff, but not as many of them do and it's usually not as extreme.

Democrats haven't defended that belief.

Ok good. We got past that strawman.

They deny that Muslims hold extreme beliefs at a rate higher than that of Christians.

That's because it's impossible to know, we can't read people's minds. Chriistians have higher rates of violent crime per capita than Muslims in the United States.

How do you quantify or define the extreme beliefs of a Muslim that believes in the literal interpretation of their book by bronze-age goat farmers over the Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of their book by bronze-age goat farmers?

So again.

Knowing that Saudi Arabia and the average Muslim man on the street won't instantly moderate the day after Democrats pubiically call their belief/values backwards, inferior and incompatible with ours. Please explain to me what stance you want Democrats to differently take that would be productive and improve things?

Show me a poll or survey showing anything equivalent to half of Christians supporting Al Qaeda or wanting the death penalty for those who leave he religion. Please go ahead. Prove me wrong. Give me one shred of evidence Christians hold beliefs that are equally extreme.

Show me a poll where half of Christians support the KKK or the guy who went into the black church and shot people.

I didn't post a straw man. You asked what belief do Muslims hold that is incompatible with our values. I answered it. You then later added a qualifier.

It's not impossible to know. You can evaluate what different groups think about various topics by asking them. Muslims are less likely to support free speech, less likely to support freedom of religion, and more likely to hold beliefs oppressive towards women.

50-99 percent of Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia want Sharia law, the number varies by country. Of those that want Sharia law, most want death for leaving the religion.

Christians aren't on average that backwards. It's not arguable. Look at any poll or survey or look at how Christians govern their countries vs how Muslims govern their countries. Look at what laws and cultural norms are in place.

In America, I can largely believe in what I want, do what I want as long as it doesn't harm others, and I can say what I want. In the Islamic world I would be put in jail or executed for my beliefs.

You are doing a perfect job proving my point. People will go so far out of their way to deny the obvious it's insane.

Half of Catholics and Irish don't currently favor killing civilians for political motives and the death penalty for leaving the religion. Im not sure what your point is since they have nothing to do with my view anyway. Catholics could be infinitely more dangerous and it wouldn't change my view.

You say that Muslims support bombings, the Irish did too.

You seem to dismiss politics. many of these Muslims are from these countries and grew up in a era of foreign intervention and rising dictatorships. That will absolutely radicalise people to blame religion over that is silly.

Did, not do.

And I'm not dismissing anything or blaming anyone. Show me where in my view I did that it said anything about it.

I made a statement about the way things are, not its causes.

1. I stated what it would accomplish in he original post and other comments. I'm also not lumping together a billion Muslims. I'm lumping the amount together that should be lumped together. I didn't over generalize. Every assertion I made is based on the data.

2. Your argument more broadly is if they hold extreme beliefs we should see evidence of his. Women are oppressed on a daily basis in the Middle East. They are treated as inferior to men as a matter of law. I also see hundreds of suicide bombings so I'm not sure what your point is.

3. Whites make up the majority of the population and Muslims only make up one percent. Yet, if we look at deaths from terrorism in the last 20 years, even if we leave out 9/11, most of the deaths are attributable to Muslims. White extremism isn't as common. Half of whites in America don't want to criminalize insulting Jesus. The KKK has nothing on Al Qaeda and Isis. The KKK doesn't have widespread support in America. There aren't daily or weekly suicide bombings by Christians in America.

Clearly, this a contentious topic. You yourself have been called racist more than a few times in this thread for trying to talk about it. At the national level, this sort of conversation would be (and, as you know, already is) contentious. Some people are freaked out about calling the muslims evil, some people are freaked out that they're getting called racist. The terms of this debate -- even in this thread here! -- hurt discourse. Everyone is either trying to prove that muslim belief in violence is widespread, or that the people saying that are racist. What we should be doing is spending time on how to prevent violence rather than arguing about Islam. What does arguing about islam get you? A lot of people trying to prove that islam isn't violent. This conversation demonstrably makes people angry, wounded, afraid, entrenched.

You and I can agree on plenty of ways to prevent violence from islamic extremist groups without having this conversation. People already are doing that. For instance, Obama blocked an arms sale to Saudi. We're conducting a drone war to hunt down and bomb terrorist ringleaders worldwide. We're sending arms and financial support to Kurdish freedom fighters in Syria to fight ISIS on our behalf. We're mass surveilling metadata from calls and texts worldwide to find patterns and see if we can trace any calls back to islamic groups. I looked up and down the thread and you admit to being less knowledgeable about what specific policy goals might be. We can argue about the merits of each of those tactics, it won't freak anyone out and nobody's feelings will get hurt, and, best of all, it has actionable outcomes. We have something we can do or not do at the end of the conversation. If we're just trying to prevent violence, and if we can talk about those specific policy goals already and it's not contentious, why is it worth having a conversation which we know to be polarizing?

If you need a perfect example of what I'm talking about look at the the guy below who commented. If a discussion of reality leads to people being called racist it hurts discourse. Let's say there is a debate in the senate about defunding foreign aid to Pakistan because they are spreading extremism. One group says well there are only a few bad apples, there aren't many people for them to convert so we don't have to worry about it. The other side can't respond without being called racist.

If you want more information about this kind of polarizing discussion tactics I encourage you to read this post in detail. It is about why people in power try to stoke these conversations. Basically, it is easier to gain power through ethnic nationalism rather than convincing people to vote for you through rational argument. So here's the basic political strategy. You kill someone and then tell all his relatives it was because he was jewish/black/muslim/whatever. His relatives open themselves up to the idea that your people are against them, and then retaliate in kind. This encourages your own people to retaliate in kind. As the post says, "The dividends of the strategy aren’t the attacks, though; they’re the wave of fascistic, xenophobic politics that’s sweeping Europe and that very nearly missed taking over the Netherlands last week." You can increase your voter base, and make them devoted to you, by fomenting extremist violence.

So, the democrats might win elections better if they talked about "global islamic terrorism," but it has a good chance of increasing violence across the world. Is that worth it to you?

The American Muslim world does seem to be very different based on my personal experiences, but Democrats do seem to deny the problem globally.

And the fact that Muslims rank higher than atheists on that feeling thermometer is appalling. Most terrorism today as measured by fatalities isn't being done by at I don't think atheists hold equivalently despicable views on average. I don't think 25% of atheists want to bomb people who disagree with them and I don't think half of atheists want the death penalty for leaving atheism and becoming theistic. If there were a terrorist attack in Europe tomorrow, and we had to guess the religion of the attacker, atheist would be a really bad bet.

Democrats do seem to deny the problem globally.

At least 51% of them don't, and keep in mind that's "very concerned" so presumably even more consider it a problem even if they're not as worried about it in particular.

I don't see much denial of the issue from democrats, apart from very liberal sub-cultures which I don't think have much political clout outside of certain universities at the moment. They don't seem to represent the democratic party - at least not yet - and many are anti-two party system, green party or independent or just "it's all bad" sorts rather than democrats.

the fact that Muslims rank higher than atheists on that feeling thermometer is appalling.

It's only a 1% difference on each side and republicans like atheists and Muslims alike less but Christianity way more. What stands out is how much more strongly republicans feel in general about particular demographics relative to democrats who are more in the middle range. 64-44 range(dem) vs. 71-33(rep).

In the title I said "much of" as my view because I didn't really want to get into a semantic game of identifying exactly how many people on the left hold this view. Also, the statistic isn't exactly targeting what I'm talking about. I wouldn't say I'm very concerned about terrorism specifically in the United States. I'm infinitely more likely to die in a car crash or probably even slipping in the shower.

The issue isn't that people aren't concerned enough about dying in a terrorist attack. The issue is that the left is either lying or ignorant about the pervasiveness of these backwards beliefs in the Islamic world. The rhetoric hinders a discussion about policy and makes them look really bad come election time.

What fear of Muslims do I have that is prejudiced and not rational? What exactly is my level of fear?

My entire position is based on the data. Where do you see any unjustified fear or prejudice. I stated what they believe and said I'm not sure what the answer is.

In term of what policy I support, I'm not sure. But to figure that out, there has to be honest public discourse without calling anyone who cites statistics prejudiced.

You haven't given me any reason to believe that you don't just want what I posited.

So, again, just answer it directly: Is the main thing you want just to be acknowledged as reasonable and objective and not racist? Do you think it's justified to punish a political party that refuses to do this? Because your self-esteem as a reasonable person seems very far from something that should be my political priority.

I have given you reasons, they were right in the original post.

1. I want Democrats to win elections and denying reality makes them look like idiots or people who are more concerned about political correctness than the lives of Americans.

2. It's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The only way to fix a problem is to talk and think about it honestly.

This all gets to my first question: What specific policies do you want the democrats to support?

You spend so much time NOT talking about policy, it really sounds like all you want is for Democrats to go "OK, you're right, Muslims are dangerous!" and then that would satisfy you.

I don't discuss policy because as I said, I don't know the answer. Part of the reason I don't even feel like I can even offer an opinion on the subject is because there is never any honest discourse on the issue. I know I'm not an expert in Constitutional law but there is a lot of discourse about the subject so I have some idea what I'm talking about. With this issue, you have Trump on one side and overly politically correct people on the other side. There is no discussion of good ideas.

You keep saying that but you have no evidence for your position. You had a preconceived idea and even when I tell you explicitly why I want them to say it you just ignore it. You say it sounds like I want the Democrats to just say it to satisfy me but what is your basis for that assertion? Why do you doubt I want Democrats to win elections? Democrats got crushed during the Bush years on the issue of terrorism. Trump won in part because of his willingness to address issues bluntly. Trump's over the top positions like an out eighth ban on Muslim immigration would look worse if he Democrats had a reasonable counter argument and position. But if their response to Trump is "your racist and don't let the actions of a few bad Muslims color your opinions of them" then Trump's position looks more reasonable by comparison.

Trump won in part because of his willingness to address issues bluntly. Trump's over the top positions like an out eighth ban on Muslim immigration would look worse if he Democrats had a reasonable counter argument and position. But if their response to Trump is "your racist and don't let the actions of a few bad Muslims color your opinions of them" then Trump's position looks more reasonable by comparison.

What is a reasonable response to this? Why isn't it reasonable to make the response that you say, here?

What do you want Democrats to DO, other than say out loud "Yes, Muslims are scary?"

You keep asking what I want them to do and I keep answering I'm not sure what you want. I want them to start discussing the issue honestly and start to think about the implications of Islamic radicalism. They should consider our support for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance. Should we make our support more conditional on them addressing radicalism? Should we stop selling them weapons? Should we sell them more weapons? If we come at these issues with the position of it's only a few bad apples, then we shouldn't care about Saudi Arabia spreading extremism because it's a small issue. If it's a pervasive problem then it's different.

And I also said I don't know what they should do. I'm wildly uneducated and uninformed on the topic of what we should do in large part because there isn't a lot of reasonable public discourse on the topic. On the one side you have Trump and on the other side you have the apologists on the left.

You keep saying what they should do, I don't know truthfully because it's never discussed. That's why it needs to be discussed. Im not sure what you don't understand.

I have an opinion on an issue like the constitutionality of gay marriage because there are smart people on both sides who make good arguments. That doesn't exist here.

You keep asking what I want them to do and I keep answering I'm not sure what you want.

But this is what your OP is about. If it's important to you that liberals "accept the pervasiveness of radical Islam" but not important that specific policy agendas get set, then can you see why I jump to the interpretation that all you want is a vocal acknowledgement?

They should consider our support for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for instance. Should we make our support more conditional on them addressing radicalism? Should we stop selling them weapons? If we come at these issues with the position it's o lay a few bad apples, then we shouldn't care about Saudi Arabia spreading extremism because it's a small issue. If it's a pervasive problem then it's different.

You don't think Islamic extremism plays a major role in the Democrats' middle east foreign policy initiatives already??

It's a false equivalency in terms of the pervasiveness and extremism of the dangerous beliefs. Half of Muslims in countries pew surveyed want the death penalty for leaving the religion. Half of Christians in America don't hold views that extreme.

You are right though that Christians are in theory a greater potential threat because they hold disproportionate power. But, as it stands now, their beliefs aren't equally abhorrent.

You are right though that Christians are in theory a greater potential threat because they hold disproportionate power.

You note in the title the "pervasiveness" of radical Islam. Isn't the above point related to the relatively small degree of pervasiveness of radical Islam when compared to the Christian right?

I meant the pervasiveness of the beliefs within the Islamic world. Also, worldwide there are 1.6 billion Muslims and 2.2 billion Christians. I was talking about Muslims worldwide, not just American Muslims.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Back to my original point: So, it's your view that even though there is more potential danger from the Christian right because they hold disproportionate power, one should not compare that to Muslims holding the views you outlined, correct? Because the views -in a vacuum- are not equally abhorrent?

However, it's not a false equivalency to make this comparison because I would guess that most people making this comparison are rightly considering the context. It's perfectly reasonable when presented with Bad Policy A (1% chance of implementation) to point to Bad Policy B (99% chance of implementation) as a more serious analog, thereby diminishing the importance of focusing on Bad Policy A. Even if Bad Policy A is objectively worse, an individual's focus on B wouldn't be a false equivalency given the context.

If you disagree, I think it would be helpful for you to point to specific instances of "liberal America" actually downplaying the above.

I literally can't be generalizing. I am giving the percentage that hold each extreme belief. I'm doing the opposite of generalizing. I'm saying about 1/3 of Muslims believe in X when about 1/3 believe in X.

I'm willing to hold Christianity responsible. But the scope of the problem isn't the same. Half of Christians don't want the death penalty for leaving the religion. Their views, on average, aren't as extreme. I don't like the political views of far right Christians at all. But their beliefs aren't nearly as abhorrent on average. In an America run by Ted Cruz I can openly be an atheist and insult whatever religion I want. In a lot of Islamic countries, I would be put to death.

You are making my argument. People make false equivalence between the two.

You said most Muslims aren't in favor of blowing up westerners, that is true. But 1/4 British Muslims think it's ok to do so.

Are strikes against military targets that result in civilian deaths justified, it depends. I don't know enough about this incident to say.

It's not really relevant because it's a false equivalency. If the enemy hides among civilians and civilians die because of it, that's not the same as blowing up a passenger train of civilians.

So, is it your argument that because it would be costly or inconvenient to strike only at purely military targets, it is acceptable to kill civilians?

Depends on how you define costly or inconvenient. If the cost is 1,000 U.S soldiers dying to save 1 civilian then that is too high of a cost. If the cost is 100,000 dollars to save two thousand civilians then it's not acceptable to kill the civilians.

That's rather odd arithmetic. How many civilian lives are a soldier's life worth? Consider soldiers have volunteered to have their lives spent, where as civilians haven't. (In fact, that is rather the definition of the word soldier.)

It's odd arithmetic that 1,000 Americans should die to save the life of one civilian whose life was endangered because scum used them as human shields?

Well, that is what they volunteered for. Those civilians did not.

But if not one thousand, how many? Are civilian lives, to you, even worth a single soldier's?

That's an incredibly intellectually dishonest statistic. First of all number of attacks isn't important if we aren't going to weight severity. You also have to adjust for percentage of the population. They are also responsible for most of the casualties in European terrorist attacks so it's not like 9/11 is just an outlier.

And how is Islamic extremism not pervasive? There are over 200,000,000 Muslims who favor the death penalty for leaving the religion. 25 percent of British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings were justified.

Recently (since 2015) the amount of terrorists that have been muslims has increased. But in the history of all terror attacks since 1990, the overwhelming majority of terrorists (on American soil) have not been Muslim.

As for Europe, they have an entirely different set of politics and reasons as to why they are involved in this civil war, which impacts these radical islamists more than the US has affected them (before our recent missile launch that is), meaning the radical islamists have more of a reason to attack those European countries. So, it IS a completely accurate statistic.

It's accurate but it's a dumb statistic that doesn't tell you anything. Obviously one percent of the population doesn't commit more terrorist acts than the other 99 percent. That doesn't mean the one percent isn't more extreme. It's insane that one percent of the population is however responsible for 99 percent of fatalities.

2 things;

1: if you call a TRUE and FACTUAL statistic "dumb" because it contrasts with your beliefs, your whole post is invalid on this sub. You accepted the validity of the fact, but ignore it because you don't like it. Facts are facts mate.

2: all the attacks, by natives of a country or by a Islamic terrorist, are all in the same realm of insanity and lethality. The Columbine shooting was pretty bad... Same goes for every mass shooting and slaughtering and bombing by non Muslims. They were devastating.

I did t call it dumb because it contrasts with my view. Jesus Christ.... I stated exactly why it's dumb in plain English. It's meaningless to say they don't commit most of the terrorist attacks if they are only one percent of the population. That's not evidence they are not more extreme. If one percent of the population commits 1/4 of the terrorist attacks, that helps my argument, not your argument.

It's a dumb statistic because it proves nothing and is completely irrelevant. I'm not sure how you don't grasp that.

Albany is the capital of New York therefore Muslim extremism is pervasive. That's the logic you are using. Saying a statistic is true doesn't make it relevant.

All attacks are not of the same lethality. Almost 3,000 people died on 9/11. Over 120 died in Paris. 24 died in Columbine. Those aren't equivalent. It's also highly debatable if school shooters are even terrorists given their lack of political motive.

But it it is completely relevant. You are right that among all terrorist attacks, muslim terrorists have caused the most casualties, even though they are the least frequent. BUT, have you stopped to realize that one terrorist attack created almost ALL of those casualties? Here's the numbers.

"According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year."

So there you have it. Amongst the 3024 casualties by terrorists, 2983 of them were caused by two people, who were Muslim. That is a skewed statistic if I've ever seen one. If I didnt know those numbers, I would assume you were right about this.

You can't call the statistic meaningless when you reason for it being meaningless comes from a HORRIBLY skewed statistic. Two people can't represent an entire nation or religion. You can't blame radical Islam for two people's actions. In statistics, you often ignore massive outliers (like this one). It's how we analyze them more accurately. That means that 41 of the terrorists casualties in 40 years were by NON Muslims.

Link to the article which contains a link to the study I cited here: https://amp.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

I don't know how to make this any more simple for you.

Muslims only make up one percent of the population in America. Saying they don't commit more terrorist attacks than the other 99 percent combined isn't evidence they aren't extreme.

You don't adjust for the fact that they are a tiny percentage of the population. Do you honestly not get this?

Let's say Muslims committed somewhere between ten and thirty percent of terrorist attacks in America over the last twenty years, that would be evidence that they are disproportionately more likely to be extremists and commit acts of terrorism. Any number higher than one percent proves my point.

What part of this do you not understand???

But they DONT commit that many! They commit LESS than 1% of terror attacks in America! That means they are less likely than white people to commit a terrorist act PER CAPITA.

You are inflating the amount of terror that Muslims cause by an incredible amount. If terrorists are 1% of the population, but cause LESS than 1% of terrorist attacks in america, they cannot come close to being blamed for the attacks.

If it was 1& to 1%, the they would be equal to white people. But, numbers show that they are less likely to be terrorists in their 1% minority than whites.

Let's see your source for this.

I don't want it to be changed. I also don't want it to not be changed. I want to believe in what is correct. If someone makes a good argument I'll listen. Why should I have changed my view based on what has been said so far? Which argument was compelling?

No one has refuted the fact that a significant percentage of Muslims hold extreme beliefs.

No one has refuted that the denial to acknowledge this has bad policy implications and hurts the Democrats come election time.

Why should I have changed my view?