5

The article Muslims Are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam (Omar Alnatour, HuffPost) claims that few terror attacks are motivated by Islam:

Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims.

...

Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.

Are those claims correct? Are there any statistics showing what percentage of terror activities happen to Islam?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 6
    This claim of yours seems more dubious than any of the sources you criticize: *"In fact, in practice, almost all terrorists are paid some salary"* – tripleee Dec 01 '17 at 05:44
  • 7
    There isn't even any proper uniformly accepted definition of terrorism. Its always used by states to demean adversaries or insurgents who may or may not be terrorists. – Sakib Arifin Dec 01 '17 at 09:02
  • 3
    The claim in the question body is opposite to the claim in the title. – Common Guy Dec 01 '17 at 09:15
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of [Are most terrorists Muslim?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1164/are-most-terrorists-muslim) – Christian Dec 01 '17 at 09:34
  • 1
    Also related: [Islamic and non-islamic terrorism: casualties](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32567) – DevSolar Dec 01 '17 at 11:37
  • This question gets tricky because almost nobody agrees on a definition of 'terrorism'. It's only slightly less vague than "does bad things". – Shadur Dec 01 '17 at 11:57
  • Never mind the content, the title is a double negative. Fix it to say what you mean clearly. – matt_black Dec 01 '17 at 14:13
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because sounds more like the author is offering own opinion in an almost rant than actually asking a question. – PoloHoleSet Dec 01 '17 at 14:32
  • 1
    This question is not opinion based, though it does of course depend on how you define terrorism, though the question could be cleaned up a bit. – Daniel Goldman Dec 02 '17 at 13:43
  • 1
    Something to keep in mind: The stats for the **number** of attacks and the stats for the damage they cause are very different. Also, note the timeframe--they're including many attacks that don't reflect the current reality. – Loren Pechtel Dec 05 '17 at 23:13
  • This question got better. It basically asks whether that one particular website is misleading. I strongly suspected it is. –  Dec 07 '17 at 01:13
  • A study in skewing definitions to achieve a desired outcome. How does one define a 'terrorist attack'? And if this were quantified by the number of deaths, would the premise still hold true? – tj1000 Dec 09 '17 at 18:48

1 Answers1

1

Terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database (via https://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 and http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ )

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

  • Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
  • International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

For the European Union. Terrorist Attacks in the EU by Affiliation

Chart from 4

Another chart from https://www.unaoc.org/2011/08/terror-attacks-in-eu-countries-by-type-2010/

enter image description here

4: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terrorist_Attacks_in_the_EU_by_Affiliation_Updated.png Wikipedia

liftarn
  • 2,354
  • 2
  • 15
  • 17
  • 1
    The question is not geographically scoped, so an answer which only documents US statistics may not be representative. (You'd imagine that US politics piss off everyone about equally; but especially the big Latino slice looks very US-specific.) – tripleee Dec 01 '17 at 07:56
  • 3
    Sources? What is your interpretation of an attack? – daniel Dec 01 '17 at 08:02
  • 1
    @daniel As it says the source is the FBI database and the definition is FBI's definition. – liftarn Dec 01 '17 at 10:45
  • 1
    @liftarn I would like a time machine do over and have one more ELF automobile arson attack and one less 911, you know since the graph shows these two things are completely equivalent. – daniel Dec 01 '17 at 11:07
  • 8
    What is a "Latino act of terrorism"? This graph is extremely weird. While I can see religious extremism as a cause for terrorism, I really don't understand how one can attribute an act of terrorism to "being latino". I could understand if the graph said drug or human-trafficking related, but tackling a ethnic group amidst political/religious groups makes little to no sense. – T. Sar Dec 01 '17 at 11:07
  • 6
    The chart seems a bit misleading to me. For example, most of the "extreme left wing groups" seem to be animal rights groups destroying farming equipment. I'm not endorsing that, but it is not what people normally think of as terrorism. The latino part seems to be mainly consisting of incidents in puerto rico related to independence movements. – tim Dec 01 '17 at 11:12
  • 2
    Where do Islamic Latinos go? And doesn't the claim revolves around acts of terror in the EU? – Jordy Dec 01 '17 at 11:16
  • Communists? Really? Waht they are considering an attack? How they are categorizing this? – jean Dec 01 '17 at 11:36
  • @jean the attacks are either related to the weather underground, or anytime someone feels the need to display their preferred gender pronoun. – daniel Dec 01 '17 at 11:48
  • @daniel the char stated 1980-2005 and Weater Underground moviment ended in early 70's also why not categorize them by extremely-left? Again the criteria for what is an attack and how categorize perpetrators are not clear – jean Dec 01 '17 at 12:06
  • @jean the Brink's robbery (1981) is what I'm guessing since I'm not clicking that fbi link again, I'm probably already on a list. – daniel Dec 01 '17 at 12:12
  • 1
    @T.Sar [Here](http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/macheteros.htm) is an old article from 1998 with some history on Puerto Rican separatists, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_movement_in_Puerto_Rico#20th_century_to_present) may help explain why FBI statistics could have them over represented. – Jeff Lambert Dec 01 '17 at 12:35
  • It would be interesting to see how those numbers change if you limit the attacks counted to those that resulted in deaths or serious injury, which is more in line with what a layman would consider terrorism. For example, I read a story about someone who jumped a fence and released a bunch of minks from a fur farm and for that alone was convicted of terrorism. I don't think most people will consider that a terror attack... – ventsyv Dec 01 '17 at 14:09
  • 3
    -1 because loonwatch is not reputable source and there is no explanation how the pie chart was compiled. The original source they link doesn't list those categories. – ventsyv Dec 01 '17 at 14:14
  • 1
    Also, looking just at the number of the terror attacks is misleading. A single terror attack that kills thousands is much more significant than one where nobody is injured. – ventsyv Dec 01 '17 at 14:17
  • 5
    @Tim Given these statistics go back to the 80s, I think it's generous to suggest that left wing terrorism was just some animal activists destroying equipment. M19CO and the United Freedom Front were both heavily active in the 80s. Left wing terrorism from the 70s-90s was pretty prevalent in the US, even if the media was generous in their reporting of it. – Jack Of All Trades 234 Dec 01 '17 at 15:03