6276 Islamic Terrorist attacks since 9/11

[Ummon]

Someone compiled a list:

2006 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
2005 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm
2004 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm
2001 to 2003 http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

Enjoy!

It appears the number is now 6292, sorry.

[Rhah]

Ummon.... do you spend all day trawling the web for this kind of stuff?

Anyway, seems that the vast majority of those 6276 attacks are in Iraq, and therefore calling them Islamic terrorists attacks is debatable.

[Ummon]

Ummon.... do you spend all day trawling the web for this kind of stuff?

Nope, I have little gnomes doing this for me.

Anyway, seems that the vast majority of those 6276 attacks are in Iraq, and therefore calling them Islamic terrorists attacks is debatable.

In truth, no. I think the majority is outside Iraq, infact.

[Carach]

Anyway, seems that the vast majority of those 6276 attacks are in Iraq, and therefore calling them Islamic terrorists attacks is debatable.

majority of them are made by hardline islamic groups, not local militias.

What is not being done against the invader in Irak is nothing but druglords and warlords fighting one against another.

because druglords (they can produce drugs in iraq?) have access to thousands of pounds of explosives?

whatever happened to just killing the target (aka leader of an enemy group or whatever) with hitmen or something, instead of blowing up a street full of shoppers?

[mrjesushat]

People, please. Are we really surprised that someone has posted yet another biased set of "facts" from a website with a clear and obvious agenda? This is so common around here, that now when I see it, I yawn.

There's a predictable pattern, even. Those of us with the capacity to quickly apply logic and reason to these claims are inevitably either ignored or responded to in some bizarre, obfuscated way. There's usually a "I know better than you do" attitude attached to such posts, and a thinly-veiled warning/threat about the danger of this violence descending upon those who doubt.

Ummon, I have to ask you this. Why do you persist in attempting to defame all of Islam on the basis of the actions of so few Muslims? And why do you fail to recognize that the majority of Muslims are moderates, because moderation is by definition the centrist and therefore majority view of almost any group? I am surprised by this constant effort on your part, because I am aware of your professional degrees and of the training you surely received in acquiring said degrees. I find it fascinating that you do not recognize the law of mass action, or rational choice theory, or the fact that probability distribution would demonstrate that the majority of any given population will have views sharply moderated as opposed to what is common to either extreme. The bell curve is for many disciplines the most basic of tools.

Can't you just let this go, and admit that the Muslims that most of us know in the West are moderate thinkers who do not advocate terrorism? Logic alone should tell you that, were the Koran universally interpretable as a book advocating and demanding violence from every Muslim against every non-Muslim, Islam would already either rule over the species or have been eradicated completely from the face of the earth.

[Ummon]

People, please. Are we really surprised that someone has posted yet another biased set of "facts" from a website with a clear and obvious agenda? This is so common around here, that now when I see it, I yawn.

You yawn my trollish friend, yet again I ask you to stay focused on the supposed (I add supposed because I await confirmation, confirmation which I do not assume as granted) facts. Is this list false?

There's a predictable pattern, even. Those of us with the capacity to quickly apply logic and reason to these claims are inevitably either ignored or responded to in some bizarre, obfuscated way. There's usually a "I know better than you do" attitude attached to such posts, and a thinly-veiled warning/threat about the danger of this violence descending upon those who doubt.

I absolutely do not suppose that I know better than you do, and I do not endorse the lists, merely report them. In truth, I even ask for contradiction of these data. But nothing comes, except the usual attempt to repel the post by diminishing the poster. I know this is your style, but this doesn't make it a valid way to argue, most of all when the data are there to be refuted.

Ummon, I have to ask you this. Why do you persist in attempting to defame all of Islam on the basis of the actions of so few Muslims? And why do you fail to recognize that the majority of Muslims are moderates, because moderation is by definition the centrist and therefore majority view of almost any group? I am surprised by this constant effort on your part, because I am aware of your professional degrees and of the training you surely received in acquiring said degrees. I find it fascinating that you do not recognize the law of mass action, or rational choice theory, or the fact that probability distribution would demonstrate that the majority of any given population will have views sharply moderated as opposed to what is common to either extreme. The bell curve is for many disciplines the most basic of tools.

Mrjesushat, I have to ask you this, why do you keep accusing me of defaming Islam, while remaining unable to tackle my arguments and data? Why do you fail to recognize an undoubtable trend in reality, which is that of Islamic violence on women, children, free people, and anyone who's not a muslim, because by definition extremism is always limited to small fringes of society, but sadly we observe Islamic violence going rampant in every place Islam has a border with another culture or faith? I am surprised by the constant refusal to look at reality on your part, because I am aware of the need of objectivity that is required in debating, as you claim to do, political topics ( :wink: ). I find fascinating that you do not recognize that you are looking for ways to forget that what we have been seeing lately is violence, and support of violence, by a majority of muslims, under many guises and disguises. The bell curve is infact why you should be aware that I am right.

Can't you just let this go, and admit that the Muslims that most of us know in the West are moderate thinkers who do not advocate terrorism? Logic alone should tell you that, were the Koran universally interpretable as a book advocating and demanding violence from every Muslim against every non-Muslim, Islam would already either rule over the species or have been eradicated completely from the face of the earth.

Can't you, mrjesushat, just let this go, and admit that the Muslims most of us know in the west are not moderate thinkers, and that many of them justify, if not openly advocate, terrorism, apartheid of women, conversion by misdirection and violence, separation from the national bodies they live in? Logic and empirical evidence should tell you this, as the Qu'ran is not universally interpretable if not in the mystical fashion of the Sufis, who are infact the only peaceful school of Islam, and as it infact preaches violence in many forms and ways, like recently confirmed by scientific studies on linguistics.

By the way, I would ask: are we done with rhetorics? Can we pass to discuss serious matters? Like this for example: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7...0500020000.htm

Pakistanis deface women on hoardings

Meenakshi Iyer (HindustanTimes.com)

New Delhi, October 30, 2006|18:04 IST

"No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live."
- Mohammad Ali Jinnah, 1944

She can tame the tide and even lead a nation bristling with religious zealots, but the plight of the average woman – no matter where she is – is pitiable. Empty rhetoric about the deplorable condition of women in South Asia is only adding insult to injury.

But the recent rage against women, especially in Pakistan, forces one to sit up and think: Is this the same nation where once Benazir Bhutto dared to take on the male bastion?

Rapes, honour killings and a plethora of religious edicts against women are not new to Islamic society, and the status of women keeps getting worse.

Source: First Post, UK
In a fresh twist, women's faces on billboards across Pakistan, especially in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), are now being defaced.
Reason? "These multinational companies want to promote obscenity, lewdness and vulgarity," religious leader, Shehzada Babar is quoted as saying in UK's First Post magazine.

The depiction of women sans hijab or headscarf is considered un-Islamic by Muslim radicals and the Taliban, whose influence is growing in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

"Although the trend has been noticed in many cities across Pakistan, recently it's been on a decline. However, it is still largely prevalent in the city of Peshawar. The local government there is following a Talibanisation drive in the province," the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) told HindustanTimes.com.

Aatekah Mir, a resident of Lahore, confirms that billboards showing women are being removed/defaced, but says that it is confined to NWFP.

"It is only in the NWFP that billboards with women are being removed. The provincial government there has this ludicrous bill that forbids music and dance mehfils in public places as well as homes," rues Mir.


Source: First Post, UK
"They (women) live their lives in utter fear and under restrictions. Even girls studying in the best of the colleges don't have freedom to carry out their dreams or even speak against harsh rules made by men. They are captive in their own houses. They can't move like American girls buying apartments of their own," says writer Abeer Khan.
He adds that for a woman, going on a date is unthinkable.

But surprisingly Mir says that despite all the strict regulations, "just before Eid-ul-Fitr, a concert was held in NWFP and there were numerous musical evenings, ghazal mehfils, fashion shows etc."

The Muttahida Majilis-e-Amal (MMA), which governs the NWFP bordering Afghanistan, had presented a bill in 2005 that banned dance, music and women's photography.

In fact, they had imposed an "unofficial ban" on dance and music after coming to power in 2002. Reports say that the MMA clerics then had set on fire cinema houses and exhibition centres and smashed billboards that displayed females' images.

In early 2003, they banned female sports, ultrasonography of females by male technicians and music in public transport.

While the HRCP and other agencies blame it all on a recent resurgence of Taliban in Pakistan, a South Asia expert says, "Pakistan is already Talibanised."

"Pakistan has never been a progressive Muslim country. It is a theocratic Islamic country and Islam in practice does not believe in liberated women. Pakistan is Talibanised," says Subhash Kapila, a strategic affairs analyst with the New Delhi based think tank South Asia Analysis Group.

"Watching movies is considered un-Islamic, especially in NWFP, where a strong Taliban resurgence has been reported. The authorities have, so far, done little to prevent such actions by the extremists," says HRCP.

Even though deliberations are underway on the passage of a women's protection bill, the HRCP regrets that it won't be of much help.

"Hudood laws won't be sufficient to ameliorate the condition of women in Pakistan. While the initial draft proposed by the government was fairly promising, it has since been watered down to a point where it is meaningless. The compromise reached with the MMA in August 2006 exposed a lack of commitment to change," says Pakistan's rights watchdog.

The Hudood Ordinance is intended to implement Muslim Sharia law, which enforces punishments mentioned in the Quran.

It was enacted in 1979 as part of military ruler Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation process. The Ordinance is criticised for criminalising all extra-marital sex (zina).

And very recently, the MMA was quoted as saying in The News International that it would launch a movement for an Islamic revolution in the country if the government tried to pass the Protection of Women Bill cleared by a select committee of parliament.

"Pakistan under its two military rulers relies on Islamic fundamentalist parties, which practice the most conservative form of Islam. Women in Pakistan are thus just chattels," says Kapila.

The Women's Protection Bill is still waiting for consensus, and till then, as Hina Jilani, the noted lawyer an human rights activist, puts it: "The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

I'm curious to see the total of terrorist attacks committed by muslims prior to the creation of Israel. Because, you know, since Ummon is apparently asserting its the faith and not the individuals within it, then, we should see high numbers of islamic terrorism against the west in the 30s and 40s. After all, there was terrorism by anarchists and other such groups (Helped start WW1 after all), so it's not like terrorism didn't exist until the 60s.

This is infact the case, whenever the west (technologically and militarily superior to Islam in the past) had direct contact with Islamic peoples. Remember Sudan? But then again, by then the main conflicts were inside Europe, not outside.

[leeho730]

In truth, I even ask for contradiction of these data.

Please read my response to your "data." Your count for number of Islamic terrorism is wrong, for example. Have you read and verified the content of the links before you posted, or simply summed up the number of those "incidents?"

For example, in 01/27/03, 'After being raped by her brothers, and refusing to commit suicide as her mother suggested, a teenage girl is stabbed and beaten to death by her father' in Pal. Auth. (which means Palestine). Hardly an act of terrorism, which is defined by "violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals."

Please do a bit more research to support your count.

Other examples:

9/23/01 in UK: 17-year-old beaten with a hammer and stabbed to death by Muslim gang in Britain. (Ross Parker murder).
Is this terrorism or domestic violence?

6/02/2002 in UK: 33-year-old British man beaten to death by a Muslim gang.
Is this terrorism or domestic violence?

2/25/03 in East Timor: Pro-Jakarta militiamen attack a minibus in East Timor, killing one person and injuring two pregnant women.
Unless you consider IRA a "Christian" terrorists.

11/20/04 in UK: A Bangladeshi man and his two sons stab a 19-year-old to death in his car in an honor killing after an affair with their daughter.
Honour killing as a terrorism? Then all the violent, abusive fathers could be committing terrorism against their daughters.

10/06/2006 in USA: In an 'honor' attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
I'm sure I've heard similar events done by westerners.

In 1998 in the U.S.,of the approximately 1.5 million violent crimes committed between intimate partners, over 874,000 of the victims were women, and over 832,000 were men. Of the approximately 1,830 murders committed against intimate partners in 1998, 3 out of 4 of the victims were women. In 2001 according to the United States Census Bureau there were 691,710 non-fatal domestic violence acts committed and 1,247 fatal incidents. In homes where domestic violence occurs, children in the home are at a 300% greater risk of being abused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_violence#US

Funny, US people seem to be quite violent... does this mean Christianity (76.7% of American adults consider themselves Chrisitan) is not a religion of peace either?

[Fenris]

because druglords (they can produce drugs in iraq?) have access to thousands of pounds of explosives?

They do produce a lot of drug, and there is also a lot of drug from afghanistan that transit through Irak. Opium-based drugs (opium, heroin,...) are the main ones. And why wouldn't they have access to explosives?

Terrorism destroys moderation on both sides

Imperialism destroys moderation on both sides... oh yeah, that sounds pretty accurate as well.

[Carach]

Imperialism destroys moderation on both sides... oh yeah, that sounds pretty accurate as well.

what does this have to do with imperialism?

there is simply no excusing 9/11, 7/7, etc etc (too many to list out..) Fenris.

I'm curious to see the total of terrorist attacks committed by muslims prior to the creation of Israel. Because, you know, since Ummon is apparently asserting its the faith and not the individuals within it, then, we should see high numbers of islamic terrorism against the west in the 30s and 40s. After all, there was terrorism by anarchists and other such groups (Helped start WW1 after all), so it's not like terrorism didn't exist until the 60s.

they still have little reason to carry out terrorist attacks after israel was made. As several countries were made out of Palestine, one only one small one was not islamic.

also that the majority of the world (UN) voted for it.

There was no suicide bombings anywhere Ahiga......islam has brought that to the table.

[AngryTitusPullo]

There was no suicide bombings anywhere Ahiga......islam has brought that to the table.

Nope. You're wrong. The Japanese did it in WW2.

[Fenris]

what does this have to do with imperialism?

there is simply no excusing 9/11, 7/7, etc etc (too many to list out..) Fenris.

Oh, I am not excusing at all! I am merely saying that it did not came out of nowhere, that's all.

also that the majority of the world (UN) voted for [the creation of Israel on palestinian soil].

That's the whole point, the majority of the world voted for it, but not the ones who were actually concerned. Did anyone care to give some other people's land to the jews?

So this may be seen as a border incident? But Hezbollah is not the official army of any country... So yes, terrorism.

That's a stupid way of defining terrorists... a terrorist is someone who attacks civil targets in order to push his... agenda. If anything a fighting group that would not be a professional army would be called a militia. Because if we follow your definition, there is quite a lot of terrorists on american soil (the militias defending the borders, for example).

The main problem is that you, the website in the OP and too many people start to equal any crime done by a muslim as "islamisc terrorism", these two words has kind of become the word used to turn anything in hate directed toward the muslim world, everyone is just spewing these two words anytime something happens... just like the majority of the americans said Saddam was linked with Al-Quaeda and was a terrorist... just try to begin to think before saying anything please.

[Rhah]

Really? I have to admit, I only had a cursory glance at the 2006 page

*goes off to look at it in more detail*

No, the majority are definitly from Iraq, but its not as overwhelming a majority as one would assume. A lot of attacks in Thailand this year, and a fair few in India.

I still take Issue with the assumption that all of these attacks are acts of "Islamic terrorism", for instance.

11/6/04 ---Iraq-- Samarrah--- 34 killed-- 66 injured---- Thirty-four people, mostly civilians, are blown up by Fedayeen suicide bombers [looking to curry favor with Allah] in several coordinated attacks.

For a start, the snide little Allah comment really doesnt help to prove that this website is unbiased or truthful, but lets assume that this is accurate for the sake of argument. These sort of attacks are part of the ongoing and highly publicised civil unrest in Iraq, and there is nothing here that says that this has anything to do with Islamic terrorism. Suicide bombers are unfortunately the current weapon of choice for insurgents (and proper terrorists) but just because they used suicide bombers in the attack doesn't mean they can be called Islamic terrorists.
On the other hand, they could well have been "trying to curry favour with Allah" for all I know, but the point is that using examples like these to compile statistics to prove a point is extremely unreliable.

[Ummon]

Really? I have to admit, I only had a cursory glance at the 2006 page

*goes off to look at it in more detail*

No, the majority are definitly from Iraq, but its not as overwhelming a majority as one would assume. A lot of attacks in Thailand this year, and a fair few in India.

I still take Issue with the assumption that all of these attacks are acts of "Islamic terrorism", for instance.



For a start, the snide little Allah comment really doesnt help to prove that this website is unbiased or truthful, but lets assume that this is accurate for the sake of argument. These sort of attacks are part of the ongoing and highly publicised civil unrest in Iraq, and there is nothing here that says that this has anything to do with Islamic terrorism. Suicide bombers are unfortunately the current weapon of choice for insurgents (and proper terrorists) but just because they used suicide bombers in the attack doesn't mean they can be called Islamic terrorists.
On the other hand, they could well have been "trying to curry favour with Allah" for all I know, but the point is that using examples like these to compile statistics to prove a point is extremely unreliable.

I accept all of these objections, but is anyone of them conclusive? Are these people biased? Surely. Are they lying? I am not really convinced.

We will see, the good side of life is that there is always a way to verify things. I am sure that someone will debunk the list, if it isn't true, for example.

[bigfootedfred]

what a despicable website.

From that site...

"Behold the Peace of Islam: Picture of the Week"

"Musayib mass graves. Proof that Iraqis were resting in peace before the war."

Forgetting for a moment that the guys who run this website, seem to have forgot
that those poor people in the photo where rounded up and killed by
Saddam Hussein Who ran a secular regime

Their use of people who were rounded up and killed,
To 'prove' that Islam 'is a evil violent faith'
Is vile and disgusting.

What a despicable website.

Are they lying?

They are quite blantently twisting the truth for their own purpose.
Its plain for the eye to see.

[Rhah]

I'm not saying that the attacks listed did not occur, and I'm damn well not going to go an cross check all 6000 or so of them to make sure! It just seems to me that an incident involving muslims killing people is considered by this website to be "Islamic terrorism" when in fact most of it is probably due to political and nationalistic reasons.
That, coupled with the obvious disdain that the website itself holds of Muslims (evident in the snide little comments) leads to my allegation of serious bias.

[Ummon]

I'm not saying that the attacks listed did not occur, and I'm damn well not going to go an cross check all 6000 or so of them to make sure! It just seems to me that an incident involving muslims killing people is considered by this website to be "Islamic terrorism" when in fact most of it is probably due to political and nationalistic reasons.
That, coupled with the obvious disdain that the website itself holds of Muslims (evident in the snide little comments) leads to my allegation of serious bias.

Those incidents with 1 or 2 people killed may as well be false or misreported as terrorism. Yet for some reason, given the places, and times, I cannot but say that I am not so sure that all this bias you describe is present, or that it determines a serious modification of the data.

A few nice smilies I have just discovered.

and obviously

[Ummon]

I don't think that because these people have an agenda, they are lying. I also absolutely cannot seem to find despiceable their use of propaganda, which they share with so many other sides and groups. Indeed, though, Saddam's regime was a socialist-totalitarian regime. This doesn't forbid those who want to support Iraq war (which of course is wrong, as Iraq war is a bad strategic mistake at best) to point out its crimes.

[sephodwyrm]

Its retarded to think that Islamic Terrorism does not exist.

It does, and the first one under terror attacks would be moderate Islamic civilization.

The first step in creating the willing terrorist and Jihadist, you would need to strip civilization from her or him.

And the industrialized nations are doing their best to help them in that. Persuade the moderates and the rest of the world that Islam is indeed barbarism. But it is really odd that anyone would accuse barbarians of barbarity, since that's what they do anyway.

-----------------------

Anyway, according to Osama bin Laden's fatwa, if that number had been 62760, the hedonist part of the Islamic civilization would be completely destroyed, the west would be brought to the knees, and the fundamentalists and salafis would gain ultimate victory...

[Fenris]

Its retarded to think that Islamic Terrorism does not exist.

Of course, saying that the figures are exagerated is the negation of the islamic terrorism...

The first step in creating the willing terrorist and Jihadist, you would need to strip civilization from her or him

No, it's to strip the military power to make them use terrorism as last ressource to fight. Because extremism is not a matter of civilisation or not. I know a country which is full of extremists and is far from being a backwater country.

Take an example: Irak invades USA and beats their army ( :tooth: ), what do you think the USA citizens will do? I ask you?

And the industrialized nations are doing their best to help them in that. Persuade the moderates and the rest of the world that Islam is indeed barbarism. But it is really odd that anyone would accuse barbarians of barbarity, since that's what they do anyway.

[OriginOfSymmetry]

Take an example: Irak invades USA and beats their army ( :tooth: ), what do you think the USA citizens will do? I ask you?

theyll probably act against the invading army, and wont just blow up cars in random streets