An(other) Inconvenient Truth--about Terrorism
Of course, it can be argued, what else might one logically expect from an administration headed by a Commander-in-Chief whose father was Muslim , who rejects “negative stereotypes” of Muslims and whose primary foreign policy directive seems to be “diplomacy is always having to say you’re sorry?” But, to be fair, his predecessor the “Crusader-in-Chief” was also a vocal proponent of the “Muslims are just Quakers with beards” approach. To both of them, and to the other Islamic apologists of the world such as Karen Armstrong, I submit the following problematic data:
The U.S. State Department has a list of 45 “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” Of those, 25 are Islamic-based organizations; 11 are secular nationalist; 7 are Marxist or Maoist; and only two are religious-based but not Muslim: the Jewish extremist Kahane Chai, and the pseudo-Shinto Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. So well over half of the “current list of designated foreign terrorist organizations” have, as their motivating ideology, Islam in one form or another. Sorry, Professor Cole, no Anglo-Saxon organizations were on there (although a few Celtic ones were); neither were there any Christian ones. Perhaps less reliable, but no less damning to the “Islam is peaceful” mantra, is this list of terrorist organizations as designated by Australia, Canada, the European Union, UK, US, India and Russia. Of 126 terror-waging groups listed, here is the breakdown by ideology:
Islamic: 64
Secular nationalist: 36
Marxist/Maoist: 13
“Other”/Anarchist: 9
Christian: 2
Shinto and Jewish: 1 each
So, just over half the world’s terrorist organizations are Muslim in origin and function. No other religious ideology is close—not even, most notably, Christianity (with its 2 billion+ membership, you’d think more would be involved in violence, wouldn’t you?). Since Muslims make up 20% of the world’s population, their involvement in over 50% of the world’s terrrorist groups is telling and troubling—and something the NIS is loathe to admit, thus tainting its claim to “know…the nature of the threats.”