Statistics, etc.
Reader comment on item: Piggybacking on Terror in Britain
in response to reader comment: One More Time? I Doubt That!

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Sep 11, 2006 at 16:48

Allow me to note, that given your name, "The Sword of Islam & the Babies of Beslan" -- I assumed that you were / are an Islamist. Most Islamists don't have a problem with murdering babies. I assumed that you were pro (that's in support of ) the murder of babies in Beslam.

Briefly, allow me to repeat -- I was NOT the one who brought up a demographic argument. You did. You seemed to think that a "mere" 3 or 2 percent of Muslims living in a Western country wasn't all that terrible. I would, in fact, concur -- IF MUSLIMS SHARED a similar world view sympathetic to Western values -- if a considerable number of them were not bent upon destroying Western civilization -- then, I would not have a problem with Muslims in western nations. Ok? (Oh, and btw, France has an estimated -- they don't keep actual stats, so this is based on educated guesswork -- 10 percent of its population is Muslim -- entire villages in northern France are now Islamic centers.)

Speaking of Britain -- according to a comprehensive poll conducted recently -- 28 percent of British Muslims "dream of the UK becoming a fundamentalist Islamic state." Another 68 percent favour support arrest and prosecution for those who "insult Islam." (Claiming that Islam is anti-semitic, btw, could very well become a crime, a criminal offense.) According to a recent CNN report, MI5 is tracking over 24 active, suspected, terror cells. I suspect it's only a matter of time before yet another attack is launced -- and it may very well come from America's "allies" (that's UK or Canada). (A leftist party in Canada just convened a meeting -- a Muslim woman stated, half-hysterically: "No nation has ever liberated another nation!" To which statement she was greeted with a standing ovation. A motion was also narrowly defeated which would have declared Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan -- "terroirsts." This leftist party is clearly pro-Taliban. They are also anti-American (so too, btw, is Britain. I don't know if you're aware of the depth of the animosity? Tony Blair is hanging onto his leadership of the Labour Party by his fingernails -- they want him out of office. Why? Because he is seen as "too American." Blair has said he wants to step down next May -- many are saying there's no way he'll last that long. I'm convinced that the moment he goes, there will be no more British troops in Iraq.)

I do agree that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism (?, as represented by Anglicans? Methodists?) has been out-spoken oppenents of Arab aggression.

Back to "logic" -- this is yet another term that is currently being abused by the Islamists (in the propaganda war). The Islamists claim to have "logic" on their side. (History and religion and people in general, along with a host of other things -- do not and should not abide by the dictates of "logic." Logic has its place -- but logic also has its limitations. ) Ditto for statistics -- all statistics require some degree of interpretation -- and there's the rub -- so the mere mention of a number is without meaning...(many of the stats that are thrown around carry loads of political baggage...and for that reason can't be trusted. Thus Islamists will repeat over and over again -- "But the terrorists form only a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims!" yeah, but what they don't mention is that it only takes half a dozen in the modern world to murder thousands. Then, whenever it suits them, the Islamists will next allege "We are one billion in number and growing daily! We'll bury you!!" Thus, their numbers wax and wane given their mood.

Finally, obviously I would not subscribe to some moronic theory that Catholics owned the Guardian (I'm not sure who owns the paper, and I don't really care either. I just know it's an antisemitic rag.) The reason I thought you were a reader of the Guardian was (again) because you repeat left-wing points of view.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.