Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

What percentage of terror attacks in the United States and Europe are committed by Muslims? Guess. Nope. Guess again. And again...
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many times have you heard that one? Sure, we heard Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade say it, but to me, that was simply part of the Fox News plan to make their viewers dumber, as we saw again this past weekend when its terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson was caught fabricating the story that Birmingham, England, is closed to non-Muslims. But more alarmingly, even some reasonable people have uttered this statement.

And that comment is often followed up by the question: Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

Obviously, there are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. We Muslims can make the case that their actions are not based on any part of the faith but on their own political agenda. But they are Muslims, no denying that.

However, and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath: Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims. Let’s give that a moment to sink in.

Now, it’s not your fault if you aren’t aware of that fact. You can blame the media. (Yes, Sarah Palin and I actually agree on one thing: The mainstream media sucks.)

So here are some statistics for those interested. Let’s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.

As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.

Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers.
We are talking about groups like France’s FLNC, which advocates an independent nation for the island of Corsica. In December 2013, FLNC terrorists carried out simultaneous rocket attacks against police stations in two French cities. And in Greece in late 2013, the left-wing Militant Popular Revolutionary Forces shot and killed two members of the right-wing political party Golden Dawn. While over in Italy, the anarchist group FAI engaged in numerous terror attacks including sending a bomb to a journalist. And the list goes on and on.

Have you heard of these incidents? Probably not. But if Muslims had committed them do you think you our media would’ve covered it? No need to answer, that’s a rhetorical question.

Even after one of the worst terror attacks ever in Europe in 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto, how much press did we see in the United States? Yes, it was covered, but not the way we see when a Muslim terrorist is involved. Plus we didn’t see terrorism experts fill the cable news sphere asking how we can stop future Christian terrorists. In fact, even the suggestion that Breivik was a “Christian terrorist” was met with outrage by many, including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

Have you heard about the Buddhist terrorists? Well, extremist Buddhists have killed many Muslim civilians in Burma, and just a few months ago in Sri Lanka, some went on a violent rampage burning down Muslim homes and businesses and slaughtering four Muslims.

Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.

Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.

And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).

In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.

But our media simply do not cover the non-Muslim terror attacks with same gusto. Why? It’s a business decision. Stories about scary “others” play better. It’s a story that can simply be framed as good versus evil with Americans being the good guy and the brown Muslim as the bad.

Honestly, when is the last time we heard the media refer to those who attack abortion clinics as “Christian terrorists,” even though these attacks occur at one of every five reproductive health-care facilities? That doesn’t sell as well. After all we are a so-called Christian nation, so that would require us to look at the enemy within our country, and that makes many uncomfortable. Or worse, it makes them change the channel.

That’s the same reason we don’t see many stories about how to reduce the 30 Americans killed each day by gun violence or the three women per day killed by domestic violence. But the media will have on expert after expert discussing how can we stop these scary brown Muslims from killing any more Americans despite the fact you actually have a better chance of being killed by a refrigerator falling on you.

Look, this article is not going to change the media’s business model. But what I hope it does is cause some to realize that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, they are actually a very small percent of those that are. Now, I’m not saying to ignore the dangers posed by Islamic radicals. I’m just saying look out for those refrigerators.

Terrorists, and terrorism, is not a statistically significant threat. Regardless of the concepts or belief of those commit such acts.

If you picked almost any other cause of death, and threw the anti-terrorism funding at it, you would probably see better benefits.

This article is immoral imo.

I dont see a point in comparing terrorists attack from each side. What does the author wants to conclude? That extremist islam should be less attacked because, it has less numbers of attacks than other kinds of terrorisms?

Cmon, this is too much shameless. Innocents are killed everyday just because a small group of criminals wants power and the author criticizes... The media???

About the number of muslim terrorism attacks are significantly lesser than other, lets just leave at this: muslim countries have controlled press. So go figure, how many muslim attacks done by their own people, as shiites loves to kills their own kind, like sunites, even though muslim shouldnt ever kill their own people, that actually pass to ocident?

Before attacking our media, occident should attack the lack of freedom of expression in muslim countries. If you still prefer making muslim extremists as "victims" of a biased press, youre not but shameless.

But lets close with this, as the author seems to have some "symphaty" to muslim terrorist. I didnt see this commented in ffxiah, as all attentions were focused in charlie hebdo, but this one makes kouachi brothers no more than kids fighting in street.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/satellite-images-reveal-devastation-boko-haram-massacre-nigeria

There's no justification in the article for terrorism. It is a critique of the media.

Thats why its a shameless articles.

In case the author had forgotten, media has the right of being free to choose what they want to discuss.

If someone attack this right, hes indirectly attacking our own freedom.

I believe the truth should be reported and truth shouldn't really be left up to interpretation

Personally i disagree. No press can be totally impartial. If it try claimming being impartial, just relating fact without the background, it will leave very few room for discussion and lot of room for ignorance.

Nowaday, i like to read article where the author is very clear in his position. There is no secret. You knows what the author wants to talk. If you want to have the truth, you should read both side, and have your own conclusion. Thats the called duscussion. Just discussing one can actually understand whats going on, and not to be naive about all background those incidents have.

Personally i disagree. No press can be totally impartial. If it try claimming being impartial, just relating fact without the background, it will leave very few room for discussion and lot of room for ignorance.

Nowaday, i like to read article where the author is very clear in his position. There is no secret. You knows what the author wants to talk. If you want to have the truth, you should read both side, and have your own conclusion. Thats the called duscussion. Just discussing one can actually understand whats going on, and not to be naive about all background those incidents have.

Also, people keep using Freedom of Speech when I think they really mean "Freedom to insult" and "Freedom to provoke" and "freedom to lie".

Can you not see on a fundamental level how the media must be held to a certain standard of accountability and truthfulness in their reporting?

I'm glad you brought that up. It is pretty comical. "No-go-Zones" and Rupert Murdoch's "All Muslims must be held responsible" has been the most entertaining comedy this week. Almost as funny as how many people actually believe this drivel.

Here's a video for you, but be warned!
I cannot gaurantee you won't be stupid after watching this drivel.
"No-Go-Zones" (@ Minute 5 and 20 seconds on the timeline, just gets ridiculously stupid rofl)

It matters not if the statistics, like the other religious attacks are clumped together.

FYI, again: (ongoing)

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/world/france-gunman/index.html