Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Cheap Cars for sale in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai Villas Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Dubai politics talk

For shafique - Muslim converts and terrorism


event horizon
Why get facts in the way of a good story??? A quick look on Wikipedia shows that there are approximately 102,000 Christians in the Indian state of Tripura, with your article saying that the Baptist Church of Tripuran has a few thousand converts (the article does not state if all of these converts are Hindus or if many converts are from different Christian sects and, therefore, do not count as a conversion from one religion to another).
Interesting enough, I notice that you conflate the NFLT with the Baptist Church - apparently unaware that the native Christian population, who are not converts, probably make up the bulk of the NFLT.
I can understand if you are confused - hey, after this thread and the obvious trend of converts to Islam who become radical zealots, I can understand your frustration of having to include a non convert Jewish man and a prime minister who can scarcely be viewed as a radical religious fundamentalist.
As I've said, it must get lonely for Muslims when only converts to Islam are the ones who try to blow things up.
shafique No problems, go back to my posts and you'll see the background to the Tripuran Christians - they are all converts from Hinduism, most converted since 1980, and the first conversions to the Baptist church taking place around 60 years ago. What is interesting is that the Church is complicit in supplying the explosives etc, and that the Church is funded by Australian and European benefactors. Shocking stuff - Christian terrorists being given support from abroad. I guess the Indian army is justified to go and bomb Sydney because they give succour to terrorists! ;) So, let me just tabulate the numbers from the list of terror attacks I gave earlier and then we'll have an updated list for my side - giving numbers of Christian convert terrorists, their victims - both killed and injured. I'll just stick with actual terrorist attacks - you will need to include 'suspected' terrorists to bolster your count, but I won't bother as I'll have my hands full counting actual attacks. I won't pester you to update your count - as the onus is now on me to update my count for 2001 to 2009 (my count of 32 for 2001 was a quick estimate). Cheers, Shafique freefromrats I suppose I should get cracking on those numbers, but to get a quick look at what I'm dealing with here, I found some article that says between 15%-20% of all prisoners in the US are Muslim:

Using shafique's parameters to include persons who committed crimes before they converted, I would conservatively guess that perhaps 10-25% of those 350,000 Muslim inmates are in prison for murder (who knows how many for rape and other violent crimes?)
Of course, until I find a better source with that provides a thorough breakdown of the statistics, I can't definitively arrive at any conclusions, but I would say it's safe to guess that Muslim converts by far are more dangerous than converts to any other religion.
Perhaps shafique can provide figures for the total number of converts in the United States and I can divide that number with the number of people who have converted to Islam whilst in prison? shafique Thanks for taking up your challenge and cutting and posting the links.
However, I asked you to specify the parameters so we could first count, classify and then compare these incidents with your premise that Islam condones/compels against violence against non-Muslims.
I wanted to see what numbers of non-Muslims were actually killed and what number of attacks actually took place - and then we could compare the numbers of other terrorist victims over that same period.
We were also going to look at ratios - look at the number of actual (or even alleged) plots by converts to Islam and divide that by the numbers converting to Islam (over the same period), and compare that with the ratios of terrorists from other faiths.
To me it appears (without doing the calculations) that Jewish Terrorists (such as Baruch Goldstein from occupied Palestine) are more violent and virulent than al-Qaeda wannabes in the west - but we can compare the relative numbers once you have completed your tally of 'actual', 'suspected' etc and divided by the numbers of converts.
Then we can also compare the numbers of people who are just anarchists (teenage or otherwise) or just criminals. ;) [The serious point is to see whether 'Muslims' as a category has a disproportionate number of 'nutters' than other groups - eg the Tim McVeigh's of this world. The Richard Reids etc of this world are just gullible nutters and are to be found in all communities... but we can test this theory]
What your list does show though, is that the media reports about suspected 'Islamic' terrorism is rich - though in many of the cases the facts tend to expose the initial headlines as nothing more than hype - eg Ricin plots in the UK (fabrications) or entrapments by the FBI in the US. But hey - I'm happy for you to count even the ultimately false headlines in your count - can't be fairer than that! (Ultimately when we look at the numbers actually killed or maimed, the truth will be stark)
So, I await your counts of incidents, killed, maimed, suspects etc... just let me know what period you are counting over and I'll compile the comparable list of non-Muslim perpetrators of terrorist acts and their victims.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats Adam Yahiye Gadahn, American convert and English interpreter for al Qaeda. He is the first American to be charged with treason in over fifty years.
José Padilla, converted to Islam in prison (hardened criminal attracted to the teachings of Islam - say it isn't so). The poor guy was rounded up before he could engage in jihad and has since been tried and found guilty.
%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
Polish born Muslim convert, Christian Ganczarski, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the deadly Tunisian synagogue bombings that murdered 19.
[tt_news]=34554&cHash=dbb08118d8
Two German converts (and a Turk) were arrested before they could "blow up hundreds of people in German airports, discotheques and restaurants. "
Sonja B, a female German convert, was arrested before she could go to Iraq (with her child) and become yet another suicide bomber.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:LiNVjyzNfpYJ:www.icst.psu.edu/publications/bloom.female-suicide-bombers.6JUL09.pdf+Sonja+B+iraq+suicide+bomber&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a freefromrats DC snipers Malvo and Muhammad managed to murder eleven and injure three others during their weeks long terror campaign. (I guess you could say they 'struck terror into the hearts of unbelievers' - kudos to anyone who can guess which book of 'peace' that quote came from)
Daniel Patrick Boyd, a ringleader of a North Carolina jihadist group calling themselves "the swords of God" (must be amish since they don't believe in modern weapons such as guns and bombs :wink: [ It's interesting to note that Muhammad gave the same moniker to Khaleed ibn Waleed, who later massacred tens of thousands of captured Persian soldiers by cutting their throats at the infamous battle of Blood Canal]). Apparently Daniel liked to keep it in the family and his own sons, Muhammad and Zakaria, were also members of the group.
An interesting snippet from the article:

Gee, I wonder where they would have gotten that idea from?
~y2009m7d28-Daniel-Patrick-Boyd-Saifullah-Sword-of-God-planned-violent-jihad-in-Tel-Aviv-Israel freefromrats On another thread, I agreed to shafique's challenge of comparing the number of converts to Islam who engage in terrorism with the number of converts to all other religions who have engaged or planned terrorist attacks.

Since I am not aware of even a single convert to a religion other than Islam who has engaged in terrorism or become a religious zealot, I guess I'll start with Muslim converts:
Here are some converted Muslim extremists who've made the headlines in the last eight years or so:
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who shot up a recruiting center a few months ago
,2933,524799,00.html
Shane Kent who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges after admitting to authorities that his terror cell (of six other Muslims) were plotting to blow up a stadium full of spectators. Just like the Mumbai hotel attackers, Kent wanted to kill thousands of non Muslims.
,australian-muslim-pleads-guilty-to-terrorism-charges.html
Germaine Maurice Lindsay was one of the four suicide bombers that targeted Britain's transport systems on the July 7th, 2005. His bombing killed twenty six unbelievers.
Isa Ibrahim, a young converted Muslim extremist who is on trial for making a suicide bomb vest with intent to use it. To Isa's defense, he never intended use the explosives he made in his flat. It's just common for youngsters these days to convert to Islam and then make their own suicide vest.
Nicky Reilly, yet *another* Muslim convert in Britain who unsuccessfully (thankfully) set off a nail bomb in a restaurant.
Richard Reid, the infamous 'shoe bomber' who boarded a plane shortly after the 9/11 jihad attacks and tried to set off his C-4 laden shoes.
(shoe_bomber)
Muriel Degauque, a female suicide bomber who, with her Muslim husband, joined al-Qaeda in Iraq, after her would be suicide bomber husband was shot dead in Iraq. She blew herself up but caused no fatalities other than her own.
freefromrats
Sorry, but that is not a fair comparison.
I am comparing the number of extremist Muslims who have been arrested (or blew themselves up or are still at large) for carrying or plotting/attempting to carry out violent attacks and are compelled or justify their actions from the texts and teachings of Islam with people who have *converted* to other faiths and have gone on to become zealot Hindus, Catholics, Protestant, etc.
As I said, I'm not aware of any Catholic convert who has been arrested for rigging up a car bomb or tossing a grenade into a market place.

Strawman. Baruch Goldstein is not a convert to Judaism.

Sure. If they were/are devout in their faith and believed they were carrying out acts in the name of their religion or were influence by the texts and teachings of their religion, then I am more than happy to include them.
A Muslim convert who happens to one day kill the guy who cut him off on the way to work would not be included. Personally, I think this is just common sense, but perhaps what I consider to be common sense would not be common sense for you?

Great, which reports do you consider to be 'hype'? I suppose the DC snipers could be the only report that is in the grey. Certainly, all the other cases involve Muslim zealots who were influenced by their interpretation of Islam.

The incidents could begin since 2001 - although I admit that this is unfair to you since most Muslim terror attacks have occurred since this 2001. I'll personally cover 2001 to 2009 and you can choose any nine year period you like.
I see no reason to not include suspects who never actually managed to kill anyone - to me, Richard Reid is just as much of a dangerous terrorist (if not more) than the 7/7 bombers. But perhaps you have a reason to limit suspects to only those that managed to inflict casualties as opposed to terrorists that were prevented from doing so. shafique Cool, we are making progress. I'm ok with you choosing the parameters - so you have said you want to cover 2001 to 2009. Fair enough. You also want to count the nutters who didn't kill anyone but just plotted to kill - also fair enough, but it would be a bit difficult for me to count the numbers of nutters of other religions who are just plotting anarchy etc... but still, it's a valid challenge. All I ask is that the numbers are kept separate - those who actually killed/carried out attacks and those 'reported' to be terrorists. As I pointed out the 'reported/suspected' terrorists tend to turn out to be just hype in many cases (eg Ricin plots). We should then end up with absolute numbers of converts to Islam who have committed or are accused of plotting terrorist attacks. I'll work out the numbers of Muslim converts over the same period and will work out the ratio of 'terrorists' within the numbers of those converting... this will form one basis of comparison with the other terrorist attacks over the same period. Let the counting begin. (BTW - Goldstein is a terrorist, and a religiously motivated terrorist - and whilst not a convert, he was an imigrant to Palestine and carried out a heinous terrorist act whilst in army uniform, quite calmly and deliberately carried out the killings. He was/is venerated by the colonialists in Hebron and elsewhere and therefore is as dangerous - or more dangerous because they are armed by the US - than any Islamic terrorist. I view those who choose to leave the Bronx, say, and come out to occupy and terrorise Palestinian Arabs of all religions to be in the same category as 'converts' - they are leaving benign Judaism for the extremist views of the colonialists. That is why I don't think he's a strawman in this argument.) Oh, and a final point - I am going to count anyone who becomes a 'born again Christian' as a 'convert' - they consider themselves as such, so who am I going to argue. If that person thinks God is ordering them to do things and ends up killing civilians - I think that should count. I may have trouble in counting the numbers killed though - but I'll give it a good stab (if you'll excuse the pun). ;) Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Great, but Baruch Goldstein is still not a convert. Although I can understand your desire to want to change the definition of a person converting from one religion to another. Unfortunately, your argument is not very convincing.

A Christian converting to Hinduism is a convert. A Hindu converting to Christianity is a convert. But, unfortunately, 'born again' Christians are not converts.
Anyways, it shouldn't be that difficult to find people who convert to religions other than Islam (including Muslims who convert to other religions) who became terrorists after their conversion, right?

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique Goldstein's terrorist acts took place outside your chosen period - so his killings won't count. Look, I'll be fair to you. You are correct - it should not be difficult to find converts to other religions who committed acts of terror. You specifically said you were unaware of Catholic converts who committed acts of terrorism. So, why don't we compare the numbers of civilians killed by Catholic converts over the period 2001 to 2009, and then check to see what proportions of Converts to Catholicism are represented by the examples I give, and compare it with the proportion of Muslim converts you can list. I have one particular Catholic Convert in mind - he is quite well known and was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians, many more times more deaths than Bin-Laden caused (for example) - and calls have been made calling for his trial as a war-criminal. I just need to work out a rough estimate of the numbers of Catholic converts over the period to check statistically how many times more Catholic converts become terrorists than Muslim converts - I think it is at least 10 times more likely, statistically speaking. (This is numbers of terrorists - when it comes to numbers of civilians killed, it appears that Catholic Converts kill thousands, 10s of thousands or perhaps 100's of thousands more than Muslim converts). So, c'mon freefromrats - give us your total counts of Muslim Convert terrorists over the period and then I can compare that with Catholic Converts in the first instance (I may then move on to converts to other faiths ). I think the Protestants shouldn't be let off the hook either - as I said before, we can also consider 'born again' Christians who think God is ordering them to go to war to be among those counted as committing acts leading to deaths of civilians (indeed terrorism by any definition) over the same period.. what do you think? Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Really? How so? Did he order bombs to be dropped on marketplaces and mosques? Do you have actual data (not imagined) of how many people were killed under his orders? Did these events take place before or after his conversion? And, most importantly, is he considered religious fanatic (pretty self explanatory term, if you need help defining one, go ahead and ask), i.e., he is a flat footed literalist as Muslims are?
These are probably issues you need to work out before you give your example. My guess is that this individual is actually quite liberal in his religious views, but I'll wait for you to actually name this person and we can compare him with Muslim terrorist converts who actually cite the Koran and Islamic theological concepts for the motivation and justification for their actions.

Well, so far you've only said you had one person in mind. Not exactly original but I'll have to wait for you to find 149 or so more converts who have used the texts and teachings of their new religion as their motivation or justification for terrorism. freefromrats
I agree that the deliberate killing of civilians - such as the beheading of several hundred bound villagers, is considered terrorism.
I am not convinced that civilians that die accidentally would be counted as terrorism. Perhaps you can enlighten me on examples from historical figures who allowed for military strikes even though they knew civilians would certainly be killed...what do you think?
Also, a 'born again' is not a convert. I see myself explaining this to you again, but if you really think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq) should be considered in the tally (I don't), why didn't you say this from the beginning?
I mean, certainly al-Qaeda in Iraq has killed more Iraqis than any other group operating in Iraq, with the possible exception of Shia death squads, but that would just be overkill. Not to mention all the other born again Muslims who have followed the true teachings of their religion and become terrorists afterward.

According to Bush, he never believed that or said it. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good argument? shafique
Yes, I so far have one person in mind for the Catholic Convert responsible for killing innocent people and terrorising populations category. When I divide this one person by the number of catholic converts, we can compare that with the numpties you're counting divided by the number Muslim converts.
However, I'm still waiting for your count and breakdown of deaths etc so that we can do the comparison.
(Oh, and I can't see why I should be 'orginal' when you have been supremely unoriginal in your list! ;) )
I guess you have guessed who my mystery Catholic Convert is ;)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Yes, why not - I'm happy to include all terrorists in the calculations when comparing which particular religious/ethnic/national groups kill the most civilians - perhaps another tally is called for after we've established which group of 'converts' produces more victims of terrorism.

Good advice - but we'd have to count Bush if 'born agains' are to be counted as converts. But as you don't want to, let's just stick with the Catholic Converts for now.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats
I'm more than willing to read how you believe these people were killed, how many were killed (after the conversion) and were they under the direct orders of the convert? Also, did this convert seek to kill civilians or did civilians die from 'collateral damage' (kind of similar to a historical figure from the Arabian peninsula who killed civilians as a result of collateral damage).
We can also see if this convert was motivated by the texts and teachings of his religion to kill civilians and 'terrorize' populations like the extremist Muslim converts who were inspired to carry out acts of terrorism based on the teachings of Islam. shafique With all due respect, you are the one who raised this issue about converts killing innocents - I'm playing along with your challenge and have accepted all the parameters you've chosen - viz 2001 to 2009 and looking at converts (as opposed to 'born agains') only. I'm waiting for your count of terrorist acts committed by Muslim converts, along with what proportion this represents - then I'll give you my figures for innocents killed by converts from other religions in the same period (starting with the requested example of a Catholic convert). My criteria will be quite straightforward - primarily I will attribute the deaths of innocents to the convert if his/her actions led to their deaths - had they not ordered actions or carried out actions, would the innocent terror victims have been subject to the terror or not. Do you have an issue with this? Dead civilians are dead civilians - terror victims one and all. You wanted to compare - so I await your numbers and am a bit amused that you are formulating excuses before you provide a total count for 'muslim convert terrorists and their victims'. I suspect you realise that we may find Catholic Converts have killed far more and that the perpetrators are a greater proportion of converts than your examples - but hey, let's not pre-judge - present your numbers and lets do the comparison. Let's leave the judgement to the statistics. Cheers, Shafique shafique duplicate freefromrats
I have a problem with counting civilians (including the 100 plus Iraqis killed today) who are murdered by Islamic insurgents as those killed by the Americans or British.
And yes, I do see a difference between someone purposely targeting civilians as opposed to civilians that died in a firefight between soldiers and insurgents that the insurgents started.
Clearly, there are exceptions - such as using excessive force in a situation or using force at all when many would argue that there was no need to do so. But, I'm not here to defend the invasion of Iraq by the early Muslims.

I don't think I'm making any excuses. I addressed this issue when you asked what parameters should be set several posts ago:

I have a feeling that the convert you have in mind is not considered a fundamentalist/fanatic by....anyone.
I thought this is clear but, in any event, it would seem you have a lot more work ahead of you than I do. You haven't addressed your convert's date of conversion and adjusted the number of deaths that person was supposedly responsible for after he converted. That's assuming he was still rigging up car bombs and setting them off next to synagogues or financial districts after his conversion.
Anyways, I'll let you start this off since I have to find out how many people actually convert to Islam in the US and Europe annually.
shafique I'm happy to wait for you to come up with your counts first - as you raised the issue and I merely decided to take you up on it. I understand why you want to qualify who the victims of terrorism are and why you are balking at the simple definition of civilians being killed. However, it is a statistic that is reasonably objective and one that can be measured - and I am sure you don't have any issues with counting civilians killed by Muslim convert terrorists as 'victims of terrorism'. As for trying to introduce a new criterion - the time period since conversion - nice try, but it is a bit late in the day to try and wriggle out of this challenge... but it is interesting to see you preparing your defense before the numbers of terror victims have been counted. ;) However, you do have a statistical point - we shouldn't be dividing the numbers of terrorist converts by the number of new converts between 2001 and 2009, but rather by the total number of Muslim converts alive in that time. Let's conservatively say that the number is double the number of new converts between 2001 and 2009 - fair enough? If not, I'll be happy with any other estimate you can argue for. If you need help with estimates of Muslim converts over 2001 to 2009, let me know and I'll employ my Googling skills. ;) I await your figures - viz - numbers of Muslim converts who a) carried out terrorist acts, b) suspected of planning/plotting terrorist acts, c) numbers of actual victims of (a) and lastly d) the proportion that a and b represent (i.e. divide the numbers of a and b by the total number of Muslim converts ) Cheers, Shafique Cheers, Shafique desertdudeshj freefromrats
I agree with you. It takes a rather delusional person living in a fantasy land to conflate secular wars with jihad terror attacks carried out by Muslims who are influenced by the teachings and texts of Islam. I mean, it's not like I'm making this up, just read the justifications that jihadists use to carry out terror attacks and the fact that the end goal for Muslims, such as Hamas and al-Qaeda, is to establish Islamic law over all of the lands previously ruled by Muslims - this includes Spain, India, and parts of Europe.
By all means, please don't take my word for it. *Read* Hamas' charter or the statements of al Qaeda's leadership to find out what they're fighting for and how far they want to take their jihad.
What is even worse, is that the goals of groups like al Qaeda is not a perversion of Islamic law but what Islamic law *today* teaches and has held the same view for over 1300 years - that Muslims are to conquer non-Muslim lands. shafique You make interesting points benwj. My observation is that most of the killings of innocents and combatants around the world is being done for political and not religious motivations. Even those movements with quasi-religious links form the minority of those actually killing and terrorising civilians. However, when taking the 'Fox News' view of the world, one is led to believe that Jihadists are the main threat to peace in the world today. I was glad when rats brought up statistics as it would give us a chance to tally up some objective numbers and compare it with the hype. This is a specific subset of killings/terrorist acts - those carried out by people who have converted to a particular religion. I still haven't presented any numbers, as I'm waiting for the sum total from 'rat's chosen period. The more he finds, the smaller the kill-ratio seems to get (the numbers killed per person labelled a 'converted terrorist'). It therefore appears that 'rats shares one trait with these nutters - they both seem to be 'all mouth and no trousers', to coin a phrase ;) I wonder how long it will take to get the promised numbers of 'converted terrorists', what proportion of converts they represent and, most importantly, the numbers of their victims? Cheers, Shafique benwj Sorry to interrupt, this is interesting reading but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. There is fundamental difference between a terrorist who happens to be religious and one who carries out acts because of their religion. This will make it a lot easier for you to tally up the numbers. It is clear to me that Al Qaeda carries out terrorist acts becasue of Islam. Bin Laden is/was an inteligent man. Charles Manson on the other hand was as crazy as they come and would have committed his crimes regardless of what religion he was, although it was christianity that he chose to follow. There are many others like him. Religion is often blamed for conficts but I think that you will find that most of these conficts are power or territorial based and religion is a mere catalyst. Here are some more well known examples: IRA: Struggle for independance of northern Ireland. not religious. Hitler killing Jews because of their religion, not because of his religion. Crusades: Now we are getting close to finding an example, but it could be argued that this was a war against two empires rather than a religious war. The term Islamic Terrorist was coined because the terrorists in question are carrying out terrorist acts because of their religion and nothing else. freefromrats
Hmmm. That's interesting. Perhaps I can include the rapes and murders that Muslim converts committed before they converted to Islam in prison?
No? I didn't think so.

As opposed to the number of extremists counted?

Cool. I'm more than happy to supply figures for Muslim converts who became terrorists/extremists because of the texts and teachings of Islam. As far as I know, all of the jihadists I've posted believed they were engaging in the theological concept of jihad warfare. So, there should be no dispute over whether they were truly Islamic terrorists as opposed to terrorists who happened to be Muslim.
Oh, and two more additions:

They sound *real* secular.
and the four Bronx jihadists, they parked what they thought were real car bombs next to two synagogues. But hey, don't we all go through that phase in life to park car bombs next to buildings? I did it just the other day:

happens all the time
#Attempted_attack_and_arrest desertdudeshj shafique Still waiting for those numbers. And just to clarify, we need to count all those who commit crimes AFTER they converted, and divide this number by the total number of converts (not just those who converted in the year the crime took place). I don't know where you are getting the bit about crimes before they converted from... perhaps you are getting ahead of yourself and trying to exonerate Mr Blair? ;) As for the religion of criminals - that too would be an interesting question, and perhaps you can provide the statistics after you have dealt with this current project. I'd also be interested in seeing the results. Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
I see that someone is changing their parameters *after* this was already pointed out.
Anyways, I look forward to your data which now includes what I've already asked for several posts ago. Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after his term as Prime Minister ended. So, it wouldn't appear that your rather poor example of an extremist convert (lol @ claiming Tony Blair is a religious extremist) is actually responsible for anyone's death after his conversion.
This is in stark contrast to devout Muslims such as John Allen Muhammad, who described his actions as part of a 'jihad' and the Jamaican Muslim convert turn suicide bomber who took out twenty civilians so he could achieve martyrdom by killing infidels (as per the Koran, surah 9.111). shafique
:lol:
Nice try at trying to shift the onus on me - you are the one that came up with the criteria and you are the one that we are waiting to produce your final count.
C'mon - what is the problem with counting the numbers of Muslim converts who committed acts of terrrorism, and counting their victims?
To keep things statistically relevant, we are going to express the numbers of so-called convert terrorists as a % of Muslim converts - but this is secondary to the absolute numbers we are waiting for you to produce.
We can compare those killed and terrorised by 'converts' with other groups of terrrorists (be they Catholic Converts or other groups) over the same period (2001 to 2009).
You can ask a friend to help count for you if you have problems with arithmetic and counting beyond 21 :lol:

I agree - if Blair converted after his actions which led to the killing of innocents, then his figures should not count.
But that said, I haven't provided any figures yet - nor have I provided the evidence of when Blair actually became Catholic - all that is yet to come and will come after you provide your figures.
As I said, it is very funny to see you laying out your defence before I post my evidence... but we still wait your count.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats
There are now entire Islamist terror groups made up of converts.
:(
And some honorable mention:
Sears tower jihadists, several men who "want(ed) to fight some jihad," (lol) have been convicted for their plans, which included blowing up the Sears tower. The men had also pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda (bayat) and have since been convicted for plotting anti government activity (jihad).
and:

Perhaps I'll include both incidents, but right now, it looks like they were 'only' in the planning stage. I'm not sure that just planning is enough to prove that they were psychologically ready to wage jihad warfare - bomb malls, skyscapers, etc. freefromrats
Not at all. I previously mentioned this and said that the previous actions of a convert should *not* be included. You seemed to have a problem with this recommendation until I brought up the fact that there are thousands of violent converts to the religion of peace.

There are many problems. For one, it looks like I'm uncovering stories every day of a convert or five to Islam that became radicalized by the texts and teachings of Islam and were motivated to carry out violent jihad.
I think it would be better to figure out the percentage of violent Muslim converts per country. Figure out the total number of Muslim converts in Germany, American and Britain and find out the number of converts in each country that have since become influenced to carry out violent attacks as a result of the violent teachings of Islam.

Yes well, according to wikipedia, Blair did not convert until after consulting the pope and that happened when he left or was leaving office.
Of course, this ignores the big elephant in the room - Blair, unlike the converted Muslim male and female religious militants, is not a fundamentalist. I can understand that you have been unable to find a single convert to another religion other than Islam who has been influenced to carry out violent terror attacks based on the texts and teachings of their new religion.
Facts such as these should not be brought up and, instead, should be ignored. :) shafique As I said before, I'm quite happy for you to make good your offer to take up this challenge and provide me the statistics for me to compare and contrast. I understand your wish to challenge any figures I may bring to contrast with yours, but it is funny you should do so before I provide any figures. As I said, I agree - any civilians killed before Blair became a practicing Catholic would not count towards his tally - so you can stop fretting that his figures will swamp those that Fox News have compiled for you. ;) We can count the civilian victims of Blair's actions over the years and see how many were killed when he was a non-Catholic, Catholic prior to public conversion, and publically converted Catholic. I just have an issue with people saying one thing a doing another (all mouth, no trousers) - this applies to nutters who claim to be terrorists and civilian killers who claim to be moral liberationists. That is why I was so pleased when you said you'd provide hard facts so we can compare the narrative from Fox News et al with the actual evidence. I'll return you the favour though - when you provide the numbers, please also provide the details and references so we can confirm that they count and agree on the numbers of victims. I really do hope you aren't one of these 'all mouth, no trousers' posters and await your stats. Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Ok, you do that.

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

My guess is that number would be zero.

Strange response. Am I somehow preventing you from presenting your stats? I suppose I could quibble over the definition of terrorism. Ahmed making pipe bombs in his masjid to use on the local Synagogue or night club would be a terrorist.
And if Ahmed was motivated to carry out violent attacks based on the texts and teachings of Islam, then he would be a religious terrorist.
So far, I haven't been convinced that Tony Blair's participation in the war on Iraq is considered terrorism.
According to various resolutions passed by the UN, the definition of terrorism is:

The European Union defines terrorism as:

Unfortunately, making up definitions to words is not proof that the Iraq war is terrorism. Perhaps the word you were looking for is war crime, but this thread is about terrorism, not war crimes. Otherwise, I would be more than happy to include the *war crimes* carried out under the first generation of Muslims, all of whom were unarguably converts to Islam, as acts of terrorism.
Now, going back to planet earth, you still need to show that
1) Blair's actions after his conversion directly led to the deaths of civilians
2) Blair's actions had the goal of "terrorizing" the civilians population of a country, i.e., Blair's actions would fall under the general definition of terrorism, not a war crime.
3) Blair is a religious fundamentalist who is following/motivated by the texts and teachings of the religion he converted to.
I would imagine, short of making up any further definitions such as terrorism or conversion (claiming that a person who physically moves to another region is a convert :roll: ), you have a long road ahead of you. So, you should probably worry about what you have to do instead of dragging your feet on your own challenge because I have not yet crunched any numbers. Feel free and start yourself. freefromrats Uh oh. Looks like I've found more British converts to Islam who are in prison for trying to blow up the country they were born and raised in.
I have to say, this seems like a recurring theme among many British Muslim converts.

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
And shafique wonders why I haven't provided any numbers yet. Finding out just how many converts to Islam are becoming terrorists is turning out to be quite a Herculean task! shafique Still (patiently) waiting for your stats. A reminder: 1. Number and list of Muslim Converts who committed terrorist crimes between 2001 and 2009 2. Number and list of Muslim converts accused of/suspected of being terrrorists or planning terrroist plots over 2001 to 2009 3. Total number of Muslim converts (new and past converts) for each of the years (so we can work out ratios) 4. Numbers of victims of 1. Once we have your list and verified that the people on it fit the criteria, I'll compare that with the terrorist acts and victims, committed by other groups -starting with converts to Catholicism (and then we can examine the evidence for when conversion takes place). As I said, if you are having problems counting - please ask for help - I'd categorise the counting of Iraqi civilians killed as 'Herculean' but let's not prejudge your stats and await your final count and then see whether this number is 'Herculean' or not. :) Cheers, Shafique freefromrats Great, I'll start with Britain.
According to this news article, there are some 14,000 converts living in Britain:

Although that statistic only includes (for whatever reason) white British converts. So, I'll go ahead and triple that figure and assume that there are around 45,000 British Muslim converts. After all, if Britian is anything like the United States, then there must be a plethora of violent criminals (rapists, murderers) attracted to the teachings of Islam.
According to the news articles I've posted in this thread, there have been
1 successful suicide bomber
5 unsuccessful suicide bombers
So, statistically speaking, less than one in every ten thousand converts to Islam living in the UK is likely to blow themselves up or wind up getting arrested before they are successful at actually doing so.
I'll wait for shafique to provide his stats for the number of suicide bomber converts to other religions in the UK and then we can compare and contrast to see which group of converts (converts to Islam or converts to all other religions) are more likely to become suicide bombers. Speedhump There's a one in eight hundred thousand chance of being on a plane with a bomb on board. There's a one in three million chance of being on a plane with two bombs on board. The rule of course is ALWAYS TAKE YOUR OWN BOMB. shafique At last Freefromrats provides some stats - woo hoo.
It seems that now the focus is going to be country by country - ok fair, enough, let's start there and accumulate as we go along.
So, for the UK we have the grand total of, steady - drum roll..... how many actual convert terorrists...... ... ..... hold on ......
yes
it is
ONE!
I note that rats does not number the victims killed by the convert - an oversight I guess. Rats - how many did he kill?
So, over the 8 years in question there has been one example.
5 suspected of being terrorists - with no victims.
So now, I just have to compare UK born converts who committed acts of terrorism over the same period, and see whether the ratio of converts is greater or less than that of Muslim converts being terrorists (less than 1 in 10,000).
It is also fascinating to read the linked article which talks about high profile converts to Islam and read that rats infers that there are more converts who are criminals. Careful, your bias is showing through. :)
Hmmm - one example (or even 6) does not lend itself to statistical credibility, but it is enlighting to see on what hard evidence the Fox News crowds draw their conclusions.
Rats - I presume you have other examples, or is counting up to 6 the limit for you here?
Cheers,
Shafique
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats
I'm sorry that you're not very impressed that there has only been one! successful Muslim convert suicide bomber. To be fair, the number of British Muslims who have successfully blown themselves up is higher, but we're not talking about Britain's Muslim population as a whole, only the 50,000 or so converts walking around.
And to my mind, that one successful suicide bomber is still more than the suicide bombings carried out by converts to other religions which, as I understand it, stands at zero.
But of course, it seems that you have also ignored that there has been a failed Muslim convert suicide bomber who prematurely detonated his explosives (I think the explosives were not yet properly mixed) before he would have been able to unleash the full power of his explosives.
While we're at it, I might as well remind you of the three converts who were days away from taking part in yet another terror attack against Britain. Except this time, this attack would have killed thousands of people. But hey, I can totally understand if you're not impressed by failure.
In the meantime, I'll (patiently) wait for your stats to show how many converts to other religions have become religiously motivated suicide bombers who thought they would receive a reward in heaven for dying whilst killing infidels. shafique I'm impressed it took you this long to count to 1 and yet omit to list the number of victims. I note that you are now trying to narrow the list to suicide bombers who are converts, rather than just terrorists who are converts - but a bit late in the thread to try and change the goalposts again, I'd say. As I said, I'm happy to make the comparison you're after and see whether the one example you have presented is significant enough to draw any conclusions. I mean, what conclusions could we draw if look at Baruch Goldstein - that all American Doctors who choose to colonise Palestine are terrorists - or that Judaism is a violent religion because Goldstein was religously motivated in his act of killing innnocents. I would hazard that he killed more people than your example (I'm still waiting for your figure of victims). Do you agree that Goldstein, as a terrorist, was more deadly than the 'convert' in question - and was definitely religiously motivated in his act of terrorism? Then we can come to the numbers killed by converts to religions other than Islam over the period and compare them with your (still to be disclosed) total. Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
I must have missed this post I made. But, where did I say that all converts to Islam become terrorists, again?

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

I see that you're back to your made up definition of conversion. Traveling from one region to another is not a conversion according to any dictionary I'm familiar with. But hey, I guess this is what I can expect from people who wish to believe what they read off of kooky pseudo Muslim websites, which includes copy/pasting talking points from said websites.
Anyways, I'll await for your list of religious zealot converts from other religions who were motivated by the texts and teachings of their new religion to carry out bombings, suicide or otherwise. shafique Bravo at not answering one of my questions. ;) So, how many victims of the one terrorist convert over the 8 years rats? I need this figure to compare against those killed by converts to other religions over that period. Also, do you agree that Goldstein is a religiously motivated terrorist? So, to recap - 1. the number of victims 2. Yes/No - to whether Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist. Cheers, Shafique shafique
It's not the post you've missed - it's the point I was making that trying to draw conclusions from one instance of terrorism is not statistically credible.
Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist and was an American Doctor who emigrated to occupied Palestine and killed in Israeli Army Uniform with Israeli Army guns. He is one example - what conclusions can we draw from his actions - that American Doctors are likely to become terrorists, or that Judaism teaches violence against worshippers?
The point is not that Goldstein was a terrorist like the suicide bomber on 7/7 - but both represent one instance of terrorism and I would not draw any conclusions from just one instance.
Please don't let my explanation detract you from the 2 questions in my previous post.
I'll let you provide the number of victims - it will provide a point of comparison/reference when we look at the other victims.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats Uh oh. It doesn't seem that you're going to like this. If you care to go back to the first page, the challenge was over the number of terror attacks and attempted terror attacks carried out by converts of different faiths:

Right now, I am unaware of terror attacks (that includes suicide bombings) carried out by Hindu/Christian/Buddhist converts - although I am aware of suicide bombings and numerous attempted suicide bombings carried out by converts to the Muslim faith.
Perhaps now you can get back to actual 'challenge' of this thread that was agreed upon?
And if you have any question over the definition of terrorism or convert, please feel free to consult me. desertdudeshj Speedhump They just love the sight of their own words in print, the same non-statements, over and over and over, accusing each other of not answering each other. What a load of nonsensical claptrap. desertdudeshj Yeah its always the same story everywhere isn't it. There should be worldwide trollforum where all the trolls from every forum can go, and troll happily ever after. shafique ohhh - no fair. Pleeeeze let me play with the troll a bit - it is a separate troll thread after all! :lol: Rats - still waiting for you to provide all the info for your 1 solitary black swan of a terrorist. How many victims did the successful numpty kill and injure? It is telling that your intensive searching had uncovered one example in 8 years in the UK. I'm not surprised that you don't want to answer the questions about Goldstein either - don't want to show the world that a single terrorist is hardly a basis to draw conclusions about their religion - or perhaps you don't think that the white doctor was a terrorist and are one of his fans who venerate his actions? Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Reminds me of the thread on the other forum where you were asked half a dozen times if you copy/posted your talking points from that Ahmadiyya website. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to present those historical facts you say exist about early Christian communities. My guess is that you made the claim up, but I guess I'll have to wait through another twelve pages of obfuscation before I get an answer. But hey, you're more than free to believe that Speedhump's comment of posters who love their own statements in print doesn't describe you to a tee.
As for your question, I've already answered you. There has been one successful British convert suicide bomber and five unsuccessful ones. This is the challenge that I accepted, so why are you having such a problem with providing the stats of non-Muslim convert terrorist bombers? Certainly, you're not in love with your non-statements, right? Speedhump *closes the door and tiptoes away....* shafique rats - so how is flying dutchman? ;) I guess you must be 'ikka' from the other forum - and see you are still up to your old tricks. When the questions get tough, you get personal. Ha, ha. ;) So, I ask how many victims the one example you counted had, and you decide to not answer the question. Not surprising. I fully understand the reason for your reluctance - even though from outset I was pretty clear on the stats you had to produce. Do you always stop half-way through your tasks? ;) Anyway - I'll patiently wait for you to provide the missing information and then we'll move on to seeing how many converts to other religions killed innocents over the 8 year period and compare them with your running count of one terrorist and x victims (where you still have to provide x). Also noted the fact that you haven't denied that you may be a Goldstein supporter, nor have you acknowledged that he was a religiously motivated terrorist. If you want to focus on one Muslim terrorist, then I have to wonder why you choose not to denounce a Jewish terrorist. Cheers, Shafique shafique I came across this quote this morning and thought it apposite here:

Cheers,
Shafique uaekid there are no need to answer him, he got all the answers all over and avalible to everyone, but he doesn't seem to accept it. so it is a waste of time. shafique ^ But give rats/ikka credit - he did manage to count to 1 terrorist who was a Muslim convert! rats - I'll give you a helping hand (as it's ramadhan and I feel charitable) - the number of victims killed by your one, sole, successful numpty terrorist was 26. His name was Germaine Lindsay and he was 19. So one convert from your estimate of 45,000 Muslim converts became a terrorist. The article you linked to said 14,000 other Brits became Muslim since 2001, and went into who some of them were and what they believed - showing that your one example above is hardly represenative and not statistically signficant. As for now comparing with converts who killed civilians over the same period, I have to say that my first choice is still Mr Tony Blair who converted to Catholicism over the same period, and whose actions have led to the continuing killing of civilians. Even if we take the date of his conversion as December 2007, he hasn't changed his views about the validity of his actions as PM, and the evidence is that he only converted after stepping down as PM because of political reasons, not religious. In any case, he and Bush have admitted to praying and seeking God's guidance before launching the wars that have killed more than 26 innocent people. Indeed, there are calls for both to be tried as war criminals - but fat chance of that ever happening. So, one 19 year old numpty who blew himself up and killed 26 civilians - vs 44,999 other converts, including those eloquent ones in your article and vs 1 high profile Catholic convert whose civilian victims are countless (literally). Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Ok, I'll wait for you to provide a breakdown of those stats. I am curious how many Iraqi civilians have been killed directly by the British military (not insurgent bombs) and then from that figure, a further breakdown to filter out civilians killed by collateral damage (civilians killed by collateral damage does not count, because as we all know, Muhammad is recorded in hadiths to give the 'green light' for Muslims to carry out raids/use catapults that would kill civilians).
After that, we can look at the differences between Catholic theology and Sunni theology - see which calls for perpetual warfare against unbelievers and then see which converts, Mr. Tony Blair or the Islamic suicide bomber, were motivated by the texts and teachings of their religion. I would imagine that praying to God is not an indictment of any one particular religion - anyone could pray to God and think that God has given them approval for certain things, after all, it happened in Arabia around 610 ce, and I don't blame any other religions for that!
Perhaps after that, you can finally provide the passages from Gibbon's book that I asked for on the other forum. shafique
I said the number of civilian victims is countless. I presume you understood this to mean 'a large number'.
I could also add to the list of alleged crimes the fact that there are now more terrorists in Iraq than before the war, but hey, let's stick with the numbers of civilians killed for now.
Let me quote the eminent Tony Benn who said in 2007:

Do you dispute that more than 26 have been killed by allied bombs and bullets as a result of Blair's decisions?
Note that the calls for war crimes charges against Blair are precisely because the war led to more than justified collateral damage - and in any case, if the war was illegal to start with, then anyone killed is as a result of criminal behaviour.
But I knew you'd run away from the stats - but I have to say that I did not think you'd only come up with a grand total of ONE.
Let me remind you of a phrase that I'm sure you will have seen many times:
"Must try harder" :)
(If you want to discuss historical events again with me, happy to do so in another thread - but you may find I'll just refer you to the answers I've given before.)
Cheers,
Shafique Lying Dutchwoman
I am not rats, but he is in Amsterdam now and is doing fine. He will be back in Dubai the 14th. Why do you ask? shafique Well, say Hi to FD from me then. rats is 'ikka' from the other forum (he should have said so before - its a relief to realise there is one and not two of him around! ;) ). The reason I ask is that Ikka seems to be the un-thinking Israeli fanboy to FDs more considered posts in support of Israel and sometimes I wonder if Ikka is just FD having fun and pretending to be obtuse? Nah - come to think of it, you it would be hard to fake consistently the Ikka/Rats posts! ;) Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
I agree that Muslim and Baathist terrorists have murdered many civilians, but I have stressed in my earlier posts that I do not include their crimes under the civilians killed by the British military.

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

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

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

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

Still waiting (patiently) for you to produce your stats. shafique
Yes, I agree. I'm also making the point that more than 26 civilians have been killed as a direct result of 'allied' bombings and shootings - and, not insignficantly, there are now more terrorists in Iraq as a result of the (illegal) war.
But if you want to expand the list of killings to those done by non-converts (strange that you want to run away from your original premise) - then, again, I'm happy to compare the numbers killed by Muslims and those killed by non-Muslims - but may I suggest you do that it another thread.

Yes - I understand your view. That is why I stated quite early on that we should stay away from subjective views (Islam equals terror, the West is Evil, Ikka knows what he is talking about etc) and stick to statistics - eg numbers of civilians killed.
Let's allow the stats to speak for themselves.
Your count of Muslim convert terrorists stands at ONE/Uno/Un (just trying to dress it up a bit for you), who killed 26 civilians.

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

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

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

I've matched your ONE terrorist with One Catholic convert whose actions killed more than 26 innocent victims.
I understand that you may struggle with these higher numbers, but please try to keep up. It would be a shame if you added to your list of fictional beliefs the fallacy that I haven't provided any stats - I've listed ONE catholic convert and asked you whether you agree his actions killed more than 26 civilians.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats I'm glad that shafique has provided some free online Spanish and French tutoring for anyone needing help learning numbers. Perhaps shafique's French and Spanish knowledge is as deep as is his knowledge on the Talmud ??? Anyways, perhaps I've missed your answers in the last post, but what are the stats for civilians killed (collateral damage not included) by the British military, again? Hopefully this won't be a repeat of asking for shafique to produce quotes from Gibbon's book to show that the gospels/new testament are historically inaccurate. After all, I wouldn't want shafique to be all talk and no trousers...? shafique You really must try and keep up rats. I said the numbers of civilians killed by British military are 'countless' and asked you whether you thought they numbered more than 26 or not.
Asking me to count for you is really not on. I really don't care how you want to label the numbers of civilians killed, we should just be counting them. You can seek to justify the numbers killed - just as those who support the 7/7 terrorists seek to justify their actions - I'm with Tony Benn who sees no distinction between the means of killing, when the intention is to kill for political purposes. But in this case, we are examining specifically the deaths of civilians.
What is telling, though, is after all the hype, bluster and bravado displayed in your initial posts of this thread - the cold, hard stats show you have so far only listed one teenage convert who killed 26. His background shows he had a grudge against society, was a drug dealer and that normal Muslims in his mosque were suspicious of him - but hey, you are only interested in the label 'muslim convert'.
All mouth, no trousers, indeed.
Let me give you another cliché:
one sparrow does not a summer make
(As for any other lingering issues over your orientalist views of Islam - or the history of Pauline Christianity - those can still be dealt with in another thread in the appropriate section - Religion. Interesting to note that you have to resort to such tactics to change the subject - 10/10 for effort, 0/10 for subtlety)
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats
I agree, you believe that.

Interesting response, perhaps you are unaware that this thread is about counting the number of terror attacks/plots by converts to other religions?
I've so far racked up quite a collection of Muslim converts who have either successfully carried out jihad - DC snipers, Synagogue bomber, London suicide bomber, Iraq suicide bomber, or were prevented from committing acts of terrorism - Richard Reid (who was prevented from detonating explosives in flight), German converts who tried to kill hundreds and an Australian convert(s) in a terror cell which admitted that they wanted to murder 'thousands' of civilians.
It would appear your lone example is of a Prime Minister who chose to go to war over secular and diplomatic reasons (to help an ally). Moreover, I haven't seen any evidence that Tony Blair is a religious fundamentalist like the Muslim converts I have cited - the vast majority if not all of them justified their actions or were motivated by the texts and teachings of Islam (Jihad, martyrdom).
Now it would appear that you have since back-pedaled, claiming that the numbers are too high to count. I assume this is a creative ploy to avoid providing some numbers, but I could be wrong. After all, you were forthcoming in producing those quotes from Gibbon's book....
In the meantime, I'll simply wait for you to provide your stats and compare the numbers of converts to Islam who have been driven to extremism to the numbers of converts to other religions who have carried out violent attacks (suicide bombings, gun attacks, bombing nightclubs, Synagogue bombings and bomb plots) based on the texts and teachings of their religion. So far, that number stands at zero. shafique Ahh, and so the game ends. How sad. We have a touching reluctuance to embrace reality by rats, who continues to cling to his belief about rampant wide-eyed boogey men terrorists despite his own stats showing that despite the hype, only one convert terrorist could be counted who killed 26 people. Rats it appears you are trying to justify the killing of innocent civilian victims and refusing to ackowledge they number more than 26. You are obviously very proud that after all the bluster and hype your count stands at ONE. As I have matched your one British terrorist who killed 26 with another British convert whose actions have led to the killing of more than 26 civilians (via illegal actions, at that) - I feel my work here is done. I didn't expect the facts to change your Fox News outlook on Islam - but it was interesting to see how long it took you to count up to one and your refusal to agree to counting the civilian victims as a comparison. The fact that you are trying to justify killing of civilians lumps you in with those who justify the killings of civilians killed by other terrorists. Cheers, Shafique freefromrats Ah, I see that shafique has resorted to his usual tactic of setting up strawmen (or is shafique's reading ability in question once again?) I must ask shafique, where have I justified the killing of civilians? This will be a tough one for shafique, but I will go ahead and clarify that I absolutely condemn the murder of civilians during war and I absolutely condemn any and all terror acts. This is the reason why I am so vocal in condemning the war crimes carried out by the early members of a certain religion, something shafique himself has chosen not to condemn but also to justify the many massacres carried out by the people in question, who shall go unnamed. I also note that shafique has not provided any stats himself but feels inclined to declare this thread over. Hey, I can totally understand the PR mess by acknowledging the dozens upon dozens of converts to Islam who have since become radicalized by the texts and teachings of Islam and become succesful terrorists (Synagogue bomber, DC snipers, London and Iraqi suicide bombers) or unsuccesful terrorists - the Australian and German convert terror cells, Richard Reid, etc,. It would appear that shafique's only argument when confronting the obvious tendency of converts to Islam to become radicalized is to deny and deflect. It's an interesting strategy. After all, I noticed that before the Iraq war (before hundreds of Islamist suicide bombers blew up Shia mosques and marketplaces), Muslim spokespeople would claim that oppression and/or poverty were the root causes of suicide bombers (at least Muslim suicide bombers). It's now sorta hard to claim that oppression and poverty is driving hundreds, indeed, over one thousand young Muslims to target their 'own' people in grizzly acts of suicide terrorism. I mean, is it likely that some guy from Algeria will travel hundreds of miles to kill Shia women and children because he's poor? Not likely. In any event, it would be interesting to guess which convert will commit or attempt to commit the next terror attack - Muslim convert or non-Muslim convert? If this thread is any indication, the odds are on the convert to Islam. But hey, shafique is more than welcome to focus on one anomaly. I wouldn't, after all, expect him to do anything other than deny and deflect. shafique
The question still hangs.... shafique Epic failure, followed by denial. I see a pattern here. :) I guess rats has realised that 'next' can't apply to an event from 8 years ago. If the challenge is still on - i.e. to provide stats to back up the Fox News beliefs of rats, then let's wait to see the stats produced - including (hopefully) the list of victims. But in case rats thinks I've overlooked his silence.... I'll repeat my question to him in the next post. Cheers, Shafique freefromrats Good. I guess the challenge is still on then.

Wanna take a guess? My bet's on Buddhist converts who blow up the next financial district. What do you think?

Yes, I wonder why the US would think that a convert to Islam who traveled to Somalia to fight Jihad with a group such as Al-Shabaab (which admittedly wants to establish Islamic law across the world) and has taken credit for numerous suicide attacks against Somalia's civilian government, would have links to Al-Qaeda?
I also suppose you have evidence that Al-Amriki only targets military personnel? I guess that Shirwa Ahmed, "the first known American suicide bomber" who took out dozens after he, like Al-Amriki, traveled to fight Jihad in Somalia, didn't get the 'memo' to only target military personnel. But I think he also considered himself a 'freedom fighter.' shafique
'next' ???
Another epic fail by rats.
The first story relates to

Perhaps rats thinks he is living in 2000 rather than 2009? :)
What is extremely telling is that he presents a piece that is pure hype (that recruits MAY be targetted in Ramadhan, and cites a case from 8 years ago - as something that has 'just taken place'.
Wow - I wonder if rats read the article or had someone else cut and paste the bit he posted. It appears that mis-representing quotes is not limited to books on Islamic history.
Or perhaps he thinks it was something that happened this week? Pray tell dear rats.
As for Al-Amriki - he is a well known Muslim convert fighting in Somalia. It's not surprising the yanks think it noteworthy to link him to Al Qaeda or that he is considered a terrorist back home - he's no different from all the other mercenaries that America exports who also commit terrorist crimes - not just in the Mid East, but notably in Latin America. That said, Al-Amriki targets military personnel as well and considers himself a freedom fighter.
But again, an epic fail on rats' part as Amriki is hardly a new case.
So - unless rats has a new definition for 'next' - he has just epically failed and shown he doesn't understand what he posts (or doesn't read his sources).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique I see that rather than sticking to the topic of the thread and producing stats of numbers of terrorists and the numbers of their victims, rats feels the need to quote Fox News. Interesting that when asked to condemn Goldstein's actions and confirm that he was a religously motivated terrorist who killed whilst in Army uniform, rats scurries away and reads Fox News, rather than face the hard cold stats. (I could also have predicted that it would not take long for the Fox News brigade to furnish Ikka/rats with more evidence - I was not surprised that the actual killings of civilians in Afghanistan this week adds to the numbers of Muslim civilians killed to counterbalance the hype of Fox News supposed terrorists) I really now wonder whether he does, after all, belong to the group of people who refuse to condemn Goldstein - or even those who still venerate what he did. I can't think why else rats evades this question - he condemns terrorism, he says, but does not confirm that he agrees Goldstein was a religously motivated terrorist. Will we get an answer this time? As for what rats considers anomalies and the norm, we've established that he will believe Fox's spin over his own stats - so not surprising he thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. ;) Cheers, Shafique shafique Strawman? :) Never mind - you say one terrorist over 8 years, I provided the body count of 26 victims. You refuse to acknowledge that my count exceeds 26. You also say you condemn all terrorist acts - yet you are silent when I ask you to confirm that Goldstein was a religously motivated terrorist who massacred worshippers whilst in Army uniform. I ask you to confirm that you aren't one of those who venerate his actions. ... I'm greeted with silence. I understand the desire to run away from the fact that you started this thread confident that the stats will support your Orientalist views on Islam, and that the stats have thus far failed you. (I'm being generous in calling your one sole example a statistic - but in the strictest technical sense it is). Of course, the irony that you call my matching one example an 'anomaly' is probably lost on you. ;) Cheers, Shafique freefromrats
Uh oh. Looks like my prediction didn't take long to come true.


,2933,546510,00.html
How sad. The lives of two more men have become ruined because they have since been driven by the texts and teachings of their adoptive religion.
Couldn't say I told you so, but I did.
And for the record, I don't consider several successful and unsuccessful martyrdom bombers out of less than 100,000 people (Britain and Germany's Muslim convert population) to be an anomaly. freefromrats Still wondering why you're trying to change the subject. It couldn't be that you're denying/deflecting, now could it?
It's understandable - hey, if I wanted to maintain that converts to other religions were just as likely as Muslim converts to become radicalized and engage in terrorism, I would also be forced to ignore the facts.

Strange obsession you have with websites. You couldn't possibly be projecting, could you?
In case you missed the posts, this thread is chalk full of converts to Islam who have become radicalized and go on to become successful/unsuccessful terrorists.
If you missed my challenge, I asked what is more likely to occur - for converts to Islam to be the ones to plot/carry out the next terror attack or converts to any and all other religions to attempt/actually carry out terror attacks, such as bombing commercial and financial districts, setting off explosives in subways...
I think the number of non-Muslim converts who have become religious zealots after converting to their adoptive religions still stands at zero.
But, please correct me if I'm wrong and you consider Tony Blair a religious zealot in the same vein that Richard Reid is one. shafique
.still hanging..
And as far as I can tell, the current running total stands at:
Rats/Ikka - One Muslim convert who killed 26
Matched by one catholic convert whose actions have led to 'countless' civilian deaths.
rats/ikka quite understandably doesn't want to address either question or statistics.
Cheers,
Shafique freefromrats With all due respect, this thread is about comparing the number of convert extremists to Islam with the number of convert extremists to other religions:

A lengthy list of terrorist Muslim converts who became radicalized from the texts and teachings of Islam has been provided in this thread.
It is you who has chosen to ignore these numerous examples and isolate a convert who does not 'fit' the definition of a religious fanatic.
So, the question goes back to, which converts do you think are more likely to carry out/attempt to carry out terror attacks - converts to Islam or converts to all other religions?
AFAIK, only Muslim converts have carried out suicide bombings (two) and an unknown number of converts to Islam have attempted to carry out suicide bombings - such as Richard Reid, who was physically prevented from detonating plastique on board a commercial airliner.
As for the other issue - if you want to rehash the issue if I universally condemn Middle Eastern terrorists in another thread, I am happy to provide my answer there. shafique
...still hanging..
(And just to clarify, I'm not asking whether you condemn all Mid East terrorists, but whether this American Doctor who gunned down worshippers for religious reasons is acknowledged by you as a religously motivated terrorist or not (I will take it as read that you would condemn him as a terrorist if you acknowledge he was indeed a religously motivated terrorist).
The question is relevant here, as you seem to be drawing conclusions from a statistical result of one actual terrorist who killed 26 and some other actual numpties and other hyped reports from the likes of Fox.)
So, do you or do you not agree that Goldstein was a religiously motivated terrorist who massacred worshippers whilst in army uniform and using army guns?
freefromrats
still hanging shafique
The stats show that converts serving in the military in Afghanistan or Iraq are the most likely to kill civilians next. But, I'm intrigued as to why you are now asking about opinions rather than statistics?
Now, back to my question:
desertdudeshj edit Soory posted in the wrong website !!! LOL freefromrats
Ok, so converts to which religion have plotted/carried out more terror attacks?
So far, I am unaware of a single non-Muslim convert to any religion who has been arrested and/or charged for conspiring to kill unbelievers.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Muslim converts, can it? freefromrats

From wikipedia:

:( freefromrats
I'm losing count. : ( shafique
I could neither see an updated count, nor an answer to my question above.
Interesting that you should be 'losing count' - the last count was 1 actual terrorist (and I had to tell you he killed 26) ;)
Why don't you want to answer my question rats - is it because you do support Goldstein's actions, or can't you bring yourself to admit that he's a religiously motivated terrorist who was American, educated and an Army official?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Sorry, don't like my old SN, anyways...

You'll have to look harder then. The five men jihad terror team who were convicted for planning jihad included a convert that I had not counted before.
I can understand why you would want to change the subject of this thread but, sorry, I won't bite.
Now, can you answer my last Q?

By my count, only Muslim converts have carried out and attempted to carry out terror attacks. This includes successful and unsuccessful suicide bombings and only Muslim converts seem to fit the criteria of religious fundies who are following the texts and teachings of their religion. shafique Ahh - i'll miss rats! So events horizon, can I call you 'eh' for short, you refuse to answer my question about Goldstein. I see, interesting. Why is that? As for your count - yes, one actual terrorist and 5 accused of plotting terrorist plots. You have provided no stats for the numbers of victims -I had to give you the count of 26. My count is one convert whose tally of civilian deaths is 'countless' - but more than 26 at least. I agree that you can come up with more instances of headlines of Muslim converts being accused of being terrorists, being entrappe by the FBI etc - but you will recall that we wanted to look at stats to establish whether this was hype over substance. I cannot come up with a figure for how many converts are serving in the military or sitting brooding at home and dreaming of killing some 'rag heads' in Eye-raq. I would hazard a guess that there are some numpties around who fit this description - the same numpty types who would commit Columbine High School type massacres just to get noticed. Therefore, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - the extent of the actual threat is in the actual killings/terror (rather than the headlines). Goldstein actually carried out the Hebron massacre, and his supporters venerate his actions - there are many more who talk the talk (and publish books etc), but it is those who actually kill and actively plot who count. I understand why you don't want to admit to Goldstein being a religously based terrorist - but given you have only come up with one actual terrorist and 5 foiled wannabes, I wanted to see whether you would finally agree that Goldstein also fitted in the same category as the one example you provided (as a terrorist killer who killed for religious reasons). Your silence speaks volumes. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Well, actually it looks like the number of converts to Islam 'plotting' (actually, one would-be suicide bomber had the misfortune of having his explosives not detonating properly) suicide bombings is up to six.
But yes, there has been one successful Muslim convert who blew himself up and six Muslim converts who would have been suicide bombers if it wouldn't have been for the meddling police and botched chemical mixing.
Now, any word on how many British, convert suicide bombers to other religions - successful or would be, there are?
I'm guessing that number is right around zero, but I'm going to need you to confirm that for me. shafique
Cool.
So 1 actual terrorist who killed 26, and 6 plotters.
vs
1 Catholic convert whose actions killed many more civilians than those above.
May I ask whether you are an only child? You seem to be displaying traits of one - did you throw tantrums when you didn't get your way and were told that you were right just to keep you quiet (when you were actually wrong?)
Now, there was something else - what was it??? hmmm..
Ah yes, the question you keep avoiding....
Cheers,
Shafique shafique shafique still waiting event horizon As I said, I'm more than happy to condemn middle eastern terrorists, I just don't see the relevance of your question in this thread. shafique
Still waiting for the confirmation that rats/ikka/eh agrees that Goldstein is a religiously motivated terrorist who was an Israeli Army officer - many believe he was a hero and not a terrorist. He was also a white American - so some would not call him 'middle eastern' (and the qualification of 'middle easter' for 'terrorists' also speaks volumes).
Therefore, still waiting to see whether Ikka is an apologist for Goldstein or does condemn him unreservedly and acknowledges him as a religiously motivated terrorist.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Yes, he was a convert to the Religion of Peace and subsequently joined a violent Islamist insurgency dedicated to toppling a 'moderate' Islamist government.

,0,4748631.story
Shocker, another convert joins al-Qaeda. event horizon
As I said, I have no problem condemning Middle Eastern terrorists just like I have no problem condemning Afghan, Pakistani, British Pakistani, Indonesian, Malaysian terrorists etc,.
For instance, I totally condemn the murder of seven 11 year old school girls who were killed by a religiously motivated Jordanian terrorist whilst he was in his army uniform - and a worryingly percentage of Jordan's population venerate this man, including many who want him free after only serving 12 years -

(and now Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood are calling for his release again)
&section=middleeast&col=
But what does condemning the actions of religiously motivated Middle Eastern terrorists, such as Ahmad Dakamseh, have to do with this thread? Speedhump Isn't it a regularly held view that the strongest proponents of something are people that have been converted to it from an opposite position? Like the most virulent upholders of smoking bans are those people who have given up a heavy smoking habit, rather than those who have never smoked? If true, it would give good grounds for expecting terrorist recruits to come from the ranks of those converted to Islam, especially those with an axe to grind against their former beliefs. Just tossing this in, I don't have an opinion myself. event horizon Yep, and that's what terrorism experts are saying - those who convert to Islam are often times more religious than those who were born into the religion. That includes resorting to extremism as a way to 'prove yourself'. Of course, this goes over shafique's head. :) shafique
Why the reluctance to condemn the American born doctor and religous terrorist, Goldstein?
(I only mention he is American born, because you seem to have missed out any white caucasian terrorists in your list of those who you condemn. I personally don't check a person's nationality before condemning their crime)
There are those who continue to venerate his actions - can you at least confirm you join me in condemning him as a religiously motivated terrorist.
If you can't say yes - should I infer that you do not condemn him unreservedly?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Well, it is a valid theory and one that we were examining in this thread.
The terrorists from among the Muslims have been overwhelmingly non-converts, but do have other characteristic traits -which they shared with the converts who chose terrorism.
By contrast, if one reads the article posted by 'eh' about the 14000 converts in the UK since 2001, one sees that those converting - far from hating the societies they live in, were much more intent in explaining what attracted to Islam - the positive effect it had on their lives etc.
The contrast with the youngsters who chose the anarchist/'jihadist' route is stark - but these 'numpties' as I call them weren't/aren't representative of the wider Muslim community, and certainly not of Islamic teachings (the police and government are at pains to point out).
The kids who shoot up high schools in the US - they are terrorists and have killed more people than Muslim terrorists in the UK. People have tried to link their actions to Goth culture, heavy metal music, internet chat rooms etc etc - yet ultimately, some kids go postal and just look for an excuse to do so.
Just look at the list of school shootings - predominantly a Western phenomenon and concentrated in the US - and seemingly increasing in frequency over the years:
(The frightening thing is that some of these character types are finding themselves in the US military and are living out their playstation fantasies over in the MidEast)
The ones who choose to hang their actions on the 'jihadist cause' are using it as a convenient label. The fact that the 'oppression' etc they are railing against is real, does not excuse their actions - which is condemned by all moral, let alone religious, authorities.
Islamic leadership have been at pains to unreservedly condemn terrorism, the Uk and US governments and police are similarly at pains to distance the religion of Islam from terrorism - but yet the old Orientalist views are still to be found today residing on may websites and as an undercurrent in the likes of Fox News etc.
Cheers,
Shafique Speedhump Thanks Shafique, that makes sense to me, and in fact the exponents of terror in the UK have not been converts as you say. The liquid bombers just convicted, the doctors involved in the Scottish car bomb and another attempt, in fact all the others who have been caught with Jihadist literature in their bedrooms and bomb making equipment. I don't recall reading of a single Western convert to Islam amongst them. The recruiters seem to pick up their bomb-fodder from the ranks of the malcontented Muslim, who is often well educated, which I find strange. They seem to have some seething resentment of the country in which they live. In fact many British Cold War double agents working for Russia in the UK were very often very well educated and free thinking, but who felt they were passed over or harshly dealt with by the West (or going back 30-40 years, were homosexual which was a bad place to be then). They didn't do it for the money, or the virgins. Jihadism (in the current narrow media useage of the term being violence against hard or soft Western targets) in the UK seems picked up as a cause by any lowlife who due to his own inability or unwillingness cannot integrate into a society which in truth does accept allcomers. Playing the race card, in a very negative way? shafique There appears to me to be a parallel track here when it comes to 'jihadist' terror attacks. First there is the 'Al Qaeda' league of terrorists - those who are actually controlled by Bin Laden or his organisation, who have actually carried out only a limited number of attacks on Western targets, IIRC. The embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing attempt of the WTC, as well as 9/11. Bin Laden was at pains to explain his motivations - and points out that his gripe is political and not because he is anti-Christian or anti-Jew (he infamously challenged the US and UK to reflect on why he wasn't targetting Sweden). His methods I disagree with, but the source of his gripes are real and are well known. He speaks out against Saudi Royals and other Muslim leaders as well. The bona fide 'al qaeda' (which I think is an oxymoron - see 'power of nightmares') - knows what they are doing and +can+ construct bombs etc. They were trained by the SAS and American special forces after all when they were fighting the Russians. Then we have the numpty wannabes - and as you say, they include otherwise educated people - eg the Glasgow airport bombers (although ultimately they were numpties when it came to basic bomb building and knowledge of explosives/flamables) In the latter cases, the official hype has been amplified by the media. Remember the Ricin plots, or the mass arrests - which all fizzled out and turned out to be nothing. Then there are the entrapments - eg the Toronto bomb plot. So - I do agree that we have numpties who are malcontents and misfits (the convicted liquid bombers are a case in point) who are flocking to the 'jihadi' cause. My contention is that their significance is hyped beyond recognition of the actual threat they pose. But hey, that is the age we live in - we like having our fads. Eventually we'll tire of it and start picking on other groups - eg the Roma, Indians or the Chinese? Apologies if I'm rambling a bit more than usual - feeling a bit hungry today ;) Cheers, Shafique Speedhump Almost Ifthar! I see on the FBI website that Bin Laden is not named as wanted specifically for the 9/11 attack. Is there hard evidence to link Al Quaeda to it, or did he admit to it? I'm not sure. It's a digression anyway. desertdudeshj I don't think there is any hard or soft evidence linking ol laden to the 9/11 events. I'm one of those guys who believe anybody but the people who the FBI says did it, did it. If that makes any sense at all. I'm more inclined to the inside job theory ( Conspiracy theory ? ) Speedhump Mossad... desertdudeshj I wouldn't be surprised. event horizon
Eh? I think there may have been one or (three) converts to Islam involved in the airline bomb plots. shafique Ah - brain now functioning a bit better... ;) On the 9/11 - my theory is that the FBI etc have worked out that the best way to hide a conspiracy is to include the facts within a web of conspiracy theories - so most will dismiss all the conspiracies. But then again, I think it gives them too much credit! ;) Cheers, Shafique Speedhump
I mentioned: The liquid bombers just convicted, the doctors involved in the Scottish car bomb and another attempt, in fact all the others who have been caught with Jihadist literature in their bedrooms and bomb making equipment.
Donald Stewart -Whyte, the Muslim convert accused in the liquid bomb plot was acquitted on all charges. I'm not going to argue with the Court's decision.
Have any of these been converts apart from the abovementioned guy? I didn't think they were. Anyway I am not going to get embroiled in the rather tortuous debate that has been going on about providing evidence of one convert committing a terrorist act. ;) shafique Bump for eh..
arfqq1 I love the readings of all the converts to Islam by Shafique. Just one question please. Who actually trains and corrupts the converts? Or may i suggest that it could be the Islamic Fundamentalists. melika969
I strongly recommend you to study more about Islam, before converting to it. You should hear the other side, people who are muslims but don't wanna be anymore. like me! shafique Well, the one Muslim terrorist that 'eh' counted was trained and influenced by other numpties who are attracted to violence despite the teachings of Islam. One convert terrorist amongst all the converts to Islam seems hardly a basis to conclude that Islam is at fault. We have one instance of an American Doctor, who emigrated to occupied Palestine, joined the Israeli Army and then (because of his religious beliefs) put on his uniform on the feast of Purim and then went to a historic place of worship and gunned down unarmed worshippers because they belonged to another religion. This man was Baruch Goldstein and there are those who view him as a hero and others who refuse to acknowledge he is terrorist - 'eh' among the latter. I wouldn't condemn Judaism for Goldstein's actions - even though he did what he did because of his view of Judaism. There are the rabbis who are anti-Zionist, and all the Israelis who work actively against all the injustices carried out by the state of Israel. Similarly, the converts and ordinary Muslims who condemn terrorism form the majority of Muslims. In this thread we have seen that over a 8 year period, only one covert committed an act of terrorism in the UK (according to eh's count) - killing some 26 people - and he was a young man who shared many characteristics with the other numpties who had fantasies about blowing up their schoolfriends. Sorry, a long answer - but the summary is that the numpty terrorists are trained by other numpty terrorists - the proof that the majority of converts are credits to society is in the article posted by 'eh' about the 1400 converts since 9/11 in the UK. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Arfqq1, thank you for your question. Converts to Islam are motivated to carry out terror attacks against Western targets based on the teachings of Islam and mainstream interpretations of its texts.
In Sunni Islam, it is a communal obligation for the Muslim community (ummah) to wage Jihad warfare against unbelievers (9:29). According to the Reliance of the Traveler, a mainstream manual of Islamic sacred law which is endorsed by al-Azhar university in Egypt, the Caliph is to wage perpetual Jihad warfare against unbelievers until the world has been conquered by Islam.
According to Islamic law, unbelievers are given three choices by the invading Muslim armies: to convert to Islam, to remain to your original faith and live as second class citizens under the new Islamic state, or to die if you refuse the first two.

http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html
For a different perspective to correct the spin of the previous poster, I suggest you read the writings of mainstream Sunni Muslim scholars on this subject.
It should speak volumes, in my opinion, that the views of Jihad by non-specialist wikipedia-crawlers is in sharp contrast with the views of learned theologians.
But hey, you're free to make up your own mind as to who is more knowledgeable of the facts in question:

I hope this primer of Jihad warfare in Islam has brought you up to speed on the actual teachings of Islam vis-a-vis unbelievers and how, according to the Koran, Sunnah and Hadith, Muslims are to treat unbelievers who live outside the domain of Islam (house of war). event horizon dp event horizon
Well, that certainly did not take very long...

Read more at:
Any word on your tally yet, shafique?
How many converts to other religions have successfully or unsuccessfully carried out terror attacks based on the texts and teachings of their religion? shafique Ok - so now we've expanded the count to include the Americas... you should have said. (You previously were only counting the UK) So what is your count now? - one actual terrorist and now 6? accused of terrorism? (Including the numpties who were entrapped, like this guy here) My count is still only one Catholic convert whose actions have caused more deaths than the 26 killed by the Brit numpty. I got sidetracked by the discussion about whether you condemn Goldstein as religious terrorist, or whether you actually define terrorist as "Muslim". I thought it would be harder - but the stats speak for themselves, and make a nice contrast with the sensationalist headlines. Cheers, Shafique event horizon 6 accused of terrorism? We're just talking about the UK, right? lol shafique I included a ? - after the 6, and also after I asked you what your count is.
26 killed by one numpty, compared to the litany of Fox News headlines - but we started this thread to check whether the headlines matched the statistical reality. Thus far stats seem to be winning.
I understand that you want to find comfort in the headlines rather than the stats - but that is a circular argument (that the headlines are correct because I want to believe in them despite the actual stats).
So, what is your count and is it now just UK and USA or is there some other territory you want to include?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I'm sorry, what are we looking for in the stats again?
I thought the OP was very clear:

Please let me know if you're still confused. shafique Yes, hence I asked what your latest count was - and I also specified we would count the numbers of victims.
Apologies if I was unclear - but I did give 1 and 6? for the counts of actual and alleged terrorists. I also gave you the number 26 for the body count of the one numpty you came up with.
So what is your latest count?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Great - I may have missed it. Where does the link say that converts belong to the National Liberation Front of Tripura?
Perhaps you're thinking of people, animists and Christians, forcibly converted to Islam in the Sudan who were later used to attack their former tribes and villages?
Here is one high profile example:
,,IRBC,,SDN,456d621e2,3df4bea71c,0.html
While it is, to my knowledge, an accepted claim that forced converts to Islam in the Sudan are then used to attack the villages they grew up in, or at least similar villages, I am unaware that there are converts who belong to the National Liberation Front of Tripura.
Perhaps you have specific examples in mind, such as the sinking of a ferry carried out by converts to Islam in the Philippines, the bombing of a Synagogue or a British convert who succesfully blew himself up on a train in London. event horizon Oh dear, looks like I accidentally stumbled upon a bunch of converts to Christianity who subsequently joined a Christian fundie terror group:


Peaceful jihad, such as the most important type of Jihad according to Muslim scholars, I am sure.
Anyways, happy to compare the number of converts to Islam who carry out/plot terror attacks with the number of converts to other religions who do the same.
Just waiting (patiently) for shafique to provide his stats. shafique eh-oh, please stop dancing around like Tinky-winky and focus.
You started in the UK, the count is one terrorist, which I matched.
Next you seemed to want to jump over to North America, now you are jumping to Pakistan.
Did you not understand that I asked for you to produce your latest count, including victims?
I know it must take a lot of effort to ignore the evidence that contradicts your world view and the Fox News headlines, but please try and focus and produce stats.
I'm quite happy to compare my statistic of one convert with whatever you produce, and then may even be inclined to look for more examples if required (when you produce an updated count).
As it stands, you have one numpty who you happily condemn, whilst you refuse to condemn Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish Terrorist - so you do seem have 'religious blinkers' when it comes to condemning terrorists. This was suspected all along, but the confirmation is in the refusal to condemn Goldstein.
But just to be clear - I'm waiting for you latest count, as far as I can see, it still stands at one terrorist who killed 26, and a few more suspected terrorists. All mouth, no trousers indeed.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Epic fail by shafique for being unable to understand what was written in the OP:

Do you have difficulty with understanding the post, shafique?
By my count, under these guidelines, we have far more than one Muslim convert 'numpty'. shafique Did I miss your updated count? As, I said, if you're having trouble with the arithmetic - I'm sure others will jump in and help. Thus far I can only see one numpty terrorist which I've matched. I've also given you an example of a Jewish Terrorist and asked you to condemn him as such - you refuse. Therefore, this thread has served its purpose - to show that your views are based more on perceptions than statistics. The fact that it's taken so many posts to turn up so few actual terrorists shows the truth in the observation that you're 'all mouth no trousers'! Cheers, Shafique shafique I just also wanted to point out that eh-oh seems to be addicted to giving misleading selective quotes - by selective, I specifically mean not giving the whole truth.
For example, compare what he said above and what was actually subsequently agreed to when establishing the groundrules:

So, now we've reminded eh-oh of the parameters (and it was such a long time ago) - let's await the updated count and hope we are not just given some more headlines about incidents that are more hype than reality.
The count is only one numpty terrorist who killed 26, compared with one Jewish terrorist who eh-oh refuses to condemn and one Catholic convert whose actions led to more than 100 times more deaths. Stats you see - exposes the fallacies of some fantasies.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I see shafique is still having trouble abiding by the parameters in the OP.
I wonder if shafique had similar problems as a child drawing in the lines or just scribbling his crayon all over the picture?
In any event, if you have trouble reading my quote, just ask and I'm sure others will jump in and help.

As I said, there are several helpful members on this forum and they might be kind enough to take pity on you and help you along if you're still not 'getting' it.

oh shafique!
Please do not move the goal posts. This thread is about *converts* to other religions who subsequently become religious nutters and carry out/attempt to carry out terror attacks.
Goldstein was not a convert to Judaism (although he might be confused with a convert to Islam). I can understand your desire to include him. After all, it must be pretty lonely for Muslims when only converts to Islam become religious nutters and carry out/attempt to carry out violent attacks. shafique Still waiting for the updated count. Please save feigned indignation for another thread where it may be relevant.
But let me thank you for quoting me asking for numbers and confirming that you still haven't condemned the one Jewish terrorist example I gave (in this and other threads).
It has taken nine pages and yet the count is still one actual terrorist and 26 killed and a few other 'suspected' terrorists. All mouth, no trousers indeed. ;)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon shafique oh! Please do not shift the goal posts.

That was what was agreed upon on another thread, remember? shafique To compare the numbers you need to supply your numbers - is this really hard to comprehend? 'Again Again!' - I await your updated count. ;)
As it stands, you have one terrorist and 26 killed and a few more suspects. I have one Catholic convert and one Jewish terrorist - just to show that trying to extrapolate a view based on ONE terrorist is a bit silly.
You have repeated my phrase, 'all mouth, no trousers' a few times now - are you sure you understand what you are cutting and pasting?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Ok, whilst I was waiting for you to expand the count to Asia, it appears you are still stuck at the count of one.
Given you've unilaterally expanded the scope to the Americas (when initially it was UK), let me give you some references for terror killings by converts to Christianity in Northern India.

Note that the site above lists all the news reports of those killed by the Christian terrorists, by year.
I'll tot up the total killed and give you a summary of those killed.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique The list of terror acts by the 'Christian Al-Qaeda' as they are sometimes called, is here:
I make a count of around 32 killed in 2001, in around 20 different incidents.
I submit that my count now stands at considerably more than 20, and that killings/terrorist acts by Christian converts is considerably more than eh-ohs solitary numpty terrorist!!
Note that one of their objectives is to forcibly convert Hindus to Christianity!
To confirm that converts are part of this terrorist organisation - this BBC report states that the conversions to Christianity took place mostly after 1980 (prior to that, only a few thousand were converted). The story also explains how the church was complicit in supplying explosives.:
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Cool - it looks like you have an example or two. Care to post where it says converts carried out any of these attacks, including any involvement in the attacks that killed 32 people in 2001? I know of a Philippine Islamic terror organisation that has at least 50-100 active converts amongst its ranks. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they easily kill more than 32 people per year. event horizon Here's a BBC article about the Philippine Isalmist terror group, that is made up of converts to Islam:
Philippines arrests key militants
Authorities in the Philippines say they have arrested at least eight suspected militants accused of having links with past attacks in the country's south.
One of those detained was Ahmad Santos, the head of a group of Islamic converts called the Rajah Solaiman Movement.
A military spokesman said the suspects were arrested in pre-dawn raids in the southern city of Zamboanga.
He alleged that they had been planning bomb attacks in predominantly Christian cities around the Philippines.
Weapons, explosives and maps of the capital, Manila, were reportedly seized during the raid.
According to police intelligence officials, the Rajah Solaiman group is believed to have forged an alliance with two al-Qaeda-linked organisations - Philippine-based Abu Sayyaf and the regional militant group Jemaah Islamiah (JI).
Converts to Islam
"This is definitely a big catch," said Lt Gen Edilberto Adan, commander of the army's Southern Command.
Ahmad Santos - also known as Hilarion del Rosario - is believed to have founded the Rajah Solaiman Movement in the late 1990s, after he converted to Islam.
He is then thought to have received bomb training from members of JI on the island of Mindanao.
Members of the Rajah Solaiman group are also suspected to have been involved in the sinking of a ferry near Manila in 2004 - an attack that killed more than 100 people.
Abu Sayyaf has claimed responsibility for that attack, but one of the self-confessed bombers was a Muslim convert from the Rajah Solaiman Movement.
According to security officials, converts are often used to carry out attacks in the Philippines because they can easily blend in with the majority Christian population.
The authorities are concerned that the emergence of convert groups such as the Rajah Solaiman Movement could expand the reach and strength of Abu Sayyaf and JI. shafique It looks like the numbers are adding up. Glad we don't disagree that the NLFT are Christian terrorists. If you read the info I provided, you'll find that these guys are converts from Hinduism - so fits your criteria. One of their aims is to forcibly convert people to Christianity. It appears you have named terrorists for your list, so it should make your job easier to count the confirmed converts and the numbers of their victims to add to your list of one numpty and x suspects. Note that my 32 odd deaths are only for 2001, we have 7 more years to add up.. as per the link. So, why don't you tot up the terrorists and victims in Phillipines etc to add to your one British numpty, and I'll do the same for the years 2002 to 2008 (there are so many reports, I'll have to set up a spreadsheet to count the incidents, numbers killed and numbers injured). I guess your numbers will be lower - so you should be finished before me, (I've given you the link with the list of attacks that I'll be using, so you can verify my figures). I also think we should stick to confirmed attacks by groups, rather than attacks 'suspected' to be carried out - don't you? Cheers, Shafique shafique I guess the above was written before you conceded that the NFLT are converts to Christianity and therefore that my facts were indeed straight. No probs - we all grab onto tit-bits of info when we think it reinforces our view. It is interesting though that the 100k Christians are pretty recent converts - and that the NFLT is trying to convert people by force. As these guys were Hindu or Tribal before, it is funny that you're trying to link them to Islam.. but not totally unexpected. ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Here's an article I stumbled upon of Jihad groups in India training converts to Islam to become Jihadists:

I wonder how many of these Jihad squads were involved in the Jihad attacks listed in the article?
Also, an article on the growing numbers of Muslim converts in Britain who join the ranks of al-Qaeda:
The article says that hundreds, possibly as many as 1500, of white Britons have joined the ranks of al-Qaeda and other radicalized militant groups:

It's really only a matter of time before these White convert Jihadists carry out attacks - if they haven't already, such as Europe's first female suicide bomber.
So many Western converts to Islam, so many jihad radicals. shafique Happy for you to continue to post articles here, but please don't overlook the fact I'm waiting for your updated count over in the 'results' page. So far, you are lagging quite a way behind with your solitary 'one' numpty terrorist count. I'm at around a conservative 170 and that's only after 3 year's - so the final count may be over 500.. (and that's just in northern India). The stats aren't looking too good for your argument! It appears that on current stats, Christianity is throwing up more convert terrorists than Islam is. Oh dear - the Fox News brigade will be reeling and I predict even more hype-driven headlines before we get acknowledgment of this fact. ;) But, as I said, the 'results' thread will settle this argument with statistics. Cheers, Shafique event horizon It helps to read posts. I've already provided a list of attacks carried out by western converts to Islam - they include a sniping spree, synagogue bombing, suicide bombings and some random shootings, grenade lobbings. We can also add to that the ferry sinking and Valentine's day bombings by the Philippine Jihad terror group that is made up entirely of converts. I'm still working the Indian angle right now. The article I posted of Indian convert jihadists and their implication to half a dozen jihad terror attacks on Indian soil will take a while to sift through. shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy