How many terrorists are there, anyway?

[Donnadogsoth]

I have no idea.  Thousands, tens of thousands?  Any thoughts?

 

EDIT:  A -1 for asking a blooming question?

[Alan C.]

At least tens of thousands if you just count politicians.

[AynRand]

I don't know about what may or may not constitute terrorism, but I believe by combining several statistics that roughly 60% of worldwide muslims support Sharia law, (and as the religious politically correct love to say their are 1.6 billion muslims) so if my math holds i think somewhere in line with 960 million muslims support sharia law which I would call terrorism, however islam inherently supports hell for nonbelievers as with all major religions so I would consider being muslim as inherently a terrorist act, so I believe their are 1.6 billion terrorists.

 

EDIT:  A -1 for asking a blooming question?

I'm assuming somebody just disagreed with you on another page, but since you can't downvote the same post twice then he just wanted to give as many downvotes as possible to you, so I'll upvote you this one time to sort of apologize for that jerks actions.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't know about what may or may not constitute terrorism, but I believe by combining several statistics that roughly 60% of worldwide muslims support Sharia law, (and as the religious politically correct love to say their are 1.6 billion muslims) so if my math holds i think somewhere in line with 960 million muslims support sharia law which I would call terrorism, however islam inherently supports hell for nonbelievers as with all major religions so I would consider being muslim as inherently a terrorist act, so I believe their are 1.6 billion terrorists.

 

I'm assuming somebody just disagreed with you on another page, but since you can't downvote the same post twice then he just wanted to give as many downvotes as possible to you, so I'll upvote you this one time to sort of apologize for that jerks actions.

 

Well, thank you.

 

Sharia does appear calculated to terrorise.  And the Moslem bullies that infest European cities are certainly low-grade terrorists.  But if you're an unbeliever you don't believe in the threat so that's a non-starter, except for a few fence-sitters vulnerable to the Adhan siren.

[AynRand]

But if you're an unbeliever you don't believe in the threat so that's a non-starter, except for a few fence-sitters vulnerable to the Adhan siren.

I disagree with that. Whether or not I believe in the threat makes no claims claims on the existence of the threat. Whether or not the likelihood of the threat being real is high or not again makes no claims on the existence of the act of threatening someone. Muslims still believe this being a threat against me, and I still recognize this as a threat against me. Whether or not this threat will actually occur if essentially irrelevant because the actions taken by Muslims and myself alike net the same whether it is true or not.

[Donnadogsoth]

I disagree with that. Whether or not I believe in the threat makes no claims claims on the existence of the threat. Whether or not the likelihood of the threat being real is high or not again makes no claims on the existence of the act of threatening someone. Muslims still believe this being a threat against me, and I still recognize this as a threat against me. Whether or not this threat will actually occur if essentially irrelevant because the actions taken by Muslims and myself alike net the same whether it is true or not.

 

Hmm.  I suppose you're right.  In that sense then Islam must be a terrorist religion.

 

This conclusion sets up a cognitive dissonance in me as a Christian, because Christianity contains terror threats and therefore should also be considered a terrorist religion.

[Mister Mister]

Hmm.  I suppose you're right.  In that sense then Islam must be a terrorist religion.

 

This conclusion sets up a cognitive dissonance in me as a Christian, because Christianity contains terror threats and therefore should also be considered a terrorist religion.

Great!  I think that's very healthy   Certainly the God Jehovah described in the Old Testament fits the definition of terrorist, from the flood to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the murder of Job's family and so on.  Though there are some Christian sects which reject the Old Testament entirely and follow only the teachings of Jesus.  However, my understanding is that Jesus has a concept of thought-crime, and introduced the concept of hell as well.

 

All this said, I think we're casting too wide a net here.  Yes I think it is wrong to threaten children with Hell, and the influence of Christianity on young men's willingness to "serve" in the military is a real concern, but it's not the same as radical Islamic terrorist Jihad.

[Donnadogsoth]

Great!  I think that's very healthy   Certainly the God Jehovah described in the Old Testament fits the definition of terrorist, from the flood to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the murder of Job's family and so on.  Though there are some Christian sects which reject the Old Testament entirely and follow only the teachings of Jesus.  However, my understanding is that Jesus has a concept of thought-crime, and introduced the concept of hell as well.

 

All this said, I think we're casting too wide a net here.  Yes I think it is wrong to threaten children with Hell, and the influence of Christianity on young men's willingness to "serve" in the military is a real concern, but it's not the same as radical Islamic terrorist Jihad.

 

I continue to agree that "radical" Islam, really traditional Islam, as Islam has a tradition of Jihad extending back to its beginning, is very dangerous, and in a way that Christianity is not.

 

Christianity's "terrorist" condition may be judged one of four ways:

 

(1) Christianity is false, and just another worthless or worse-than-worthless hellfire religion

(2) Christianity is false, and a politically useful hellfire religion

(3) Christianity is true, and therefore accepting its doctrine of hellfire is rational

(4) Christianity is true, but the hellfire component is misunderstood.

[Mister Mister]

I continue to agree that "radical" Islam, really traditional Islam, as Islam has a tradition of Jihad extending back to its beginning, is very dangerous, and in a way that Christianity is not.

 

Christianity's "terrorist" condition may be judged one of four ways:

 

(1) Christianity is false, and just another worthless or worse-than-worthless hellfire religion

(2) Christianity is false, and a politically useful hellfire religion

(3) Christianity is true, and therefore accepting its doctrine of hellfire is rational

(4) Christianity is true, but the hellfire component is misunderstood.

That's interesting, I think I follow but can you elaborate?

[Donnadogsoth]

That's interesting, I think I follow but can you elaborate?

 

Either Christianity is true or false. If false, it is either useful or useless. If it is false and useful, as by promoting a certain morality and economically valid worldview, then the possibility of separating the useful kernel from the nut of falseness arises and should be tried.

 

If it is false and useless, eradicate it.

 

If Christianity is true, and literally promises hellfire to the unrepentant sinner, then it should be believed and obeyed. Nothing, by definition, is worth going into hellfire for, certainly not the momentary satisfaction of making a stand on principle against the Almighty. (I'll add that atheists often hold God to be unjust, and if that were so, their pointing out that injustice would, although still vain, be correct. But if God is in fact just, then that changes the equation and no longer makes Hell a horrible statement about God, but just a horrible place that deserving sinners are sent.)

 

If Christianity is true, hellfire may be misunderstood as not a punishment from God as such but as a condition of the soul that has misled its life. This requires a revision of the understanding of immortality as the concept of a soul's efficacy at contributing to human society and therefore placing itself like a brick in a cathedral upon which further bricks rest on in the quest for height. In this view, hell is the condition of the soul that has contributed nothing, and is to be burned up like garbage in Gehenna.

[5eriously]

To get back to the original question.

 

How many terrorists there are really depends on what is a  terrorist. Asking how many terrorists are in the world, is like asking how many idiots are in the world or how many beautiful people are in the world. It all depends on your definition. 
 

To respond to Ayn Ryan example of people who believe in Shira Law are terrorists. If i take this on face value this is a narrow definition. It also raises some interesting questions. Are they still terrorists if they only want Shira Law if it is voted in directly or indirectly in a democratic country (doesn't make it moral)? Are the respondents willing to use the direct use of force to impose Shira law?  Is Shira Law the only belief that makes you a terrorist? Would other beliefs also make you a terrorist?  

To treat Ayn Ryan as a rational human being and stop straw manning him/her. Does the belief in something make you a terrorist? If so what/who determines if that belief makes you a terrorist?

 

A quick google search, provides many vague definitions of varying quality. As an example, please see the FBI's definition of international terrorism below:

 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

 

A. Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

B. Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

C. Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

 

That narrows it down a bit. So if i got in my mind that there should be a law that everyone has to wear purple hats and i go and do something violent i would be a terrorist. Neat!

 

Where it get's fuzzy, is what does "involve" mean? Does the act have to carried out? or can it be the planning phase? Do i have to pull the trigger or am i a terrorist if i get the bomber's coffee? Also it's totally OK to commit violent acts and acts dangerous to human life if it's not breaking the law. Just an amusing side note.

 

The second criteria, could literally mean anything. For example politicians fit into "to intimidate or coerce the civilian population", it's kind of their job. 

 

The third criteria is just to separate "Domestic" and "international terrorism". So i won't address it. 

 

Interestingly,  when you combine that definition some really odd things could be called terrorism. 

 

If i kidnapped and then murdered someone in Romania, for any reason by that definition i would be a terrorist. I committed violent acts (A) which would intimidate the people in Romania (B) and last i checked Romania is not in the US ©. That last part might need a fact check.  

I think terrorism is one of those "trigger words". It has a lot of emotional impact behind it. It's a real gut punch, kinda of like rape but without the concise definition. 

So i don't think there is a way to say how many terrorists are in the world because the definition to terrorism is too board and people can't agree on what it is. I don't think the FBI is or should be the definitive source of the definition. 

If you have a definition in mind, i can drill into that and hopefully give a better estimate. 

This is a really interesting question to think about. I don't think Islam and Christianity has much to do with it though. These religions are part of the current terrorism problems, but your question is more abstract then that. It's not like Islam has a patent on terrorism. There has been many terrorists, from many different belief systems. 

[Donnadogsoth]

To get back to the original question.

 

How many terrorists there are really depends on what is a  terrorist. Asking how many terrorists are in the world, is like asking how many idiots are in the world or how many beautiful people are in the world. It all depends on your definition. 

 

To respond to Ayn Ryan example of people who believe in Shira Law are terrorists. If i take this on face value this is a narrow definition. It also raises some interesting questions. Are they still terrorists if they only want Shira Law if it is voted in directly or indirectly in a democratic country (doesn't make it moral)? Are the respondents willing to use the direct use of force to impose Shira law?  Is Shira Law the only belief that makes you a terrorist? Would other beliefs also make you a terrorist?  

 

To treat Ayn Ryan as a rational human being and stop straw manning him/her. Does the belief in something make you a terrorist? If so what/who determines if that belief makes you a terrorist?

 

A quick google search, provides many vague definitions of varying quality. As an example, please see the FBI's definition of international terrorism below:

 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

That narrows it down a bit. So if i got in my mind that there should be a law that everyone has to wear purple hats and i go and do something violent i would be a terrorist. Neat!

 

Where it get's fuzzy, is what does "involve" mean? Does the act have to carried out? or can it be the planning phase? Do i have to pull the trigger or am i a terrorist if i get the bomber's coffee? Also it's totally OK to commit violent acts and acts dangerous to human life if it's not breaking the law. Just an amusing side note.

 

The second criteria, could literally mean anything. For example politicians fit into "to intimidate or coerce the civilian population", it's kind of their job. 

 

The third criteria is just to separate "Domestic" and "international terrorism". So i won't address it. 

 

Interestingly,  when you combine that definition some really odd things could be called terrorism. 

 

If i kidnapped and then murdered someone in Romania, for any reason by that definition i would be a terrorist. I committed violent acts (A) which would intimidate the people in Romania (B) and last i checked Romania is not in the US ©. That last part might need a fact check.  

I think terrorism is one of those "trigger words". It has a lot of emotional impact behind it. It's a real gut punch, kinda of like rape but without the concise definition. 

 

So i don't think there is a way to say how many terrorists are in the world because the definition to terrorism is too board and people can't agree on what it is. I don't think the FBI is or should be the definitive source of the definition. 

 

If you have a definition in mind, i can drill into that and hopefully give a better estimate. 

 

This is a really interesting question to think about. I don't think Islam and Christianity has much to do with it though. These religions are part of the current terrorism problems, but your question is more abstract then that. It's not like Islam has a patent on terrorism. There has been many terrorists, from many different belief systems. 

 

I would define a terrorist as anyone committing immoral acts of violence designed to instill fear into a person or persons.  This would include Jihadis, but also gangs and schoolyard bullies.  A moral act of violence designed to instill fear would be, for example, beating an intruder off your property.

[5eriously]

 

 

I would define a terrorist as anyone committing immoral acts of violence designed to instill fear into a person or persons.

 

Well in that case i don't think we can ever know how many terrorists there are in the world. New people are born everyday into families where they are taught the skills to be violent to overs in an attempt to instill fear.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well in that case i don't think we can ever know how many terrorists there are in the world. New people are born everyday into families where they are taught the skills to be violent to overs in an attempt to instill fear.

 

We can't know exactly, but we can whittle it down to a ballpark estimate.  How many bullies are there in a school?  1 in a 100?  1 in 10?  In my experience of Junior High there were two bullies out of hundreds of kids.  Let's split the difference and call it 4%.  The Terrible 4%.  That gives 288 million terrorists in the world, low grade or high grade.

 

A high grade terrorist, one who actually picks up a real weapon, not a toothpick or a pin or something but a real weapon like a machete or a gun, and intends to use it, seems harder to figure, but if the 4% number is correct than we can expect a warlike religion such as Islam would encourage, by hook or crook, that 4% of natural bullies (low grade terrorists) to become, or at least become-in-waiting, high grade terrorists.  Out of a population of 1.6 billion, that gives 64 million high grade terrorists.  All they all tapped?  No.  But they're present and vulnerable to transforming into Jihadis given sufficient incentive.

 

/ballpark

[fractional slacker]

The word is meaningless in philosophical terms. It's like racism. It's used a means to demonize political opponents. Try defining the word apriori rather than ex post facto.

[Donnadogsoth]

The word is meaningless in philosophical terms. It's like racism. It's used a means to demonize political opponents. Try defining the word apriori rather than ex post facto.

 

The word racism itself is a terroristic word.  It's used to instill fear of attack, whether physical or social, in anyone who activates for white self-interest.

 

It could be argued complementary-wise that the word terrorism itself is a racist word.  It's used to justify physical and social attacks on nonwhite "freedom fighters."

 

"Terrorists" are simply non-whites attacking the West.  "Racists" are simply Westerners attacking terrorists.