Are immigrants more likely to become terrorists?

in politics •  7 years ago 

Are foreigners more likely to become terrorists?

If we look at the statistics we would find that being killed by foreign terrorists is actually quite rare. Official statistics show you are more likely to die falling out of bed then to be killed by a terrorist. You are more likely to choke than to be killed by a foreign terrorist.

First, can we agree on the definition of terrorism?

  • Terrorism is not a religion.
  • Terrorism is not a race.
  • Terrorism is not organized crime.
  • Terrorism is about politics not profit.
  • Terrorism is not "mental illness" even if the attacks by lone wolfs are usually conducted by mentally ill individuals.

What is ISIS?

  • Most Muslims are not terrorists.
  • Islam itself is not the cause of terrorism.

What does ISIS want?

Whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is up for debate

  • Most individual Muslims are peaceful.
  • Even if Islam has peaceful times, there are going to be times when it's not peaceful, as in my opinion war and peace are cycles not based on the religion but on political agendas.
  • A better question is whether or not "political Islam" is peaceful.

Why do we assume foreigners are more likely to become terrorists?

Do we assume foreigners are more likely to become terrorists because in our perception of them we believe they have less to lose? If a person does not own a home, is not part of the establishment, is not integrated into the community and or society, then is it safe to assume that this person is also less likely to be influenced by the community, less likely to avoid certain risks due to having less to lose?

I would say this assumption is only an assumption until it passes the tests of statistical evidence in support of it. We simply have statistics to go by and based on the statistics there isn't any evidence that foreigners are more likely to become terrorists or even that the majority of terrorist attacks at least in the United States are committed by foreigners. Refugees from Syria for example have not committed any terrorist attacks this year. In fact, the list of countries which have restricted access to the United States have not produced any terrorist attacks.

Going by statistics alone the risk of foreign terrorist attack is very low and the fear of refugees does not seem to be based on the statistics. This could mean that policies are being set by hysteria rather than by actual level of risk in society. Setting policies based on fear and hysteria only leads to more fear and hysteria and this can lead to anger. This anger can lead to anti-Islamic terrorism. The majority of terrorists who have attacked America are not Islamic. The percentage of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in the United States should in my opinion be reflected in the anti-terrorism resources directed in the United States, but these are not my decisions to make.

For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

References


  1. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/should-blame-islam-terrorism
  3. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/index.html
  4. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/terrorism-right-wing-america-muslims-islam-white-supremacists-study-a7805831.html
  5. https://www.quora.com/Is-Islam-really-the-main-cause-of-terrorism
  6. http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I have just a few questions you may want to help with:
Are there any buddhist terrorists that kill in the name of Buddha?
Are there any christian terrorists that kill in the name of Jesus?
What's the percentage of muslim comunities that actually condemn these act of terrorism?
Why are they now "no-entry" zones in cities of Europe that just a few years ago were completely accessible?
Why are police afraid of entering muslim neighborhoods, like in London, Paris( les Banlieues), Stockholm?

Are there any christian terrorists that kill in the name of Jesus?

Are you joking? Do you not see what Christians do to others?

Why are they now "no-entry" zones in cities of Europe that just a few years ago were completely accessible?

You do realize they're only no-entry for police, and even then it's questionably no-entry at best. That's not a refugee problem, that's an anti-state thing.

Why are police afraid of entering muslim neighborhoods

Why are the police in athens fucking terrified of entering into the communist/anarchist neighborhoods?
Why are they afraid of many black neighborhoods in America?
Because there their badge and outfit that screams "I catch bullets for the state(!)" represents nothing but a target, and rightfully goddamn so.

My questions are, are these questions political or religious? There are many political groups which happen to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, which have done terrorist attacks.

Does the religion have anything to do with the political agendas or is religion used to brainwash people into supporting certain political agendas?

Usually you reply to questions with answers , not with other questions!!!
But i'm just a level 33 user, so I better stay quiet.

Hey man , i have answers for your questions , this is the typical un-educated question i get asked alot ... Yes there are Buddist that kill in the name of Budha heres a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
And yes there are Christians that kill in the name of jesus Africa has Anti-balaka they destroy mosques and kill muslims , another one is Tripura in india a terrorist group that go around killing anyone that opposes there religion. I could go on and on but you better do your research before asking such questions... I don't blame you for not hearing about those as Media is owned by goverments and political parties and all have agendas , so By them shedding the light on Isis they empower them give them a platform and make the stronger.Muslim communities that condemn terrorism ??? You would be surprised buddy ... Only 99 % of muslim countries condemn it, Come to Dubai ,Oman, Egypt , No one likes to see innocent people being killed muslim or not.
Man and the rest of the questions go back to my answer of AGENDAS of governments of ruining the image of islam read my other reply on this post and get a grip .

I thought we were talking of Europe and the western world. Since the title is "Are immigrants more likely to become terrorists?"

and where do immigrants come from wise one ? Jupiter or Mars ? Immigrants are people , and like people there is good and there is bad. an immigrant , a friend of my cousin in the U.S was shot with his wife in their home because of their religion ... The media said the man that killed them was sick in the head, anything to keep the word terrorist associated with muslims and ONLY muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chapel_Hill_shooting

And who said that? I'm just saying you can't deny that in Europe , 2015 to 2017, almost all the attacks are done by people of the same religion.

99.9999% of muslims dont associate themselves with those terrorists so you can't say same religion , ISIS are not muslims and i find it offensive that they are called muslims they're animals

I was a immigrant, now I live happily in California....

this is the typical un-educated question i get asked alot

And this is typical patronizing arrogance.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

But i'm just a level 33 user, so I better stay quiet.

You'd better speak your mind, as you just did. Staying quiet is the worst option.

The Holy inquisition in 9-12 centures could kill thousands in the name of Christ. Islam is the youngest among Christianity Buddhism and Judaism. It can explain, but not justify Islamic extremism.
Police can afraid to enter dangerous areas not only because of the religion of its inhabitants - eg. Latin districts in California or Christiania in Denmark.

The Holy inquisition in 9-12 centures could kill thousands in the name of Christ.

This is the most stupid argument I can think of. And also the most dangerous one: appealing to collective responsibility and trying to invoke collective guilt. Quite a lot of people have been killed due to this kind of thinking. It's easy to start, and hard to stop.

It is not the argument, it is example. Question was did the christians kill in the name of Christ - yes, they did. Can it justify islamic terror - no, just can explain terror motivation from evolution point of view

No, the question was: "Are there any christian terrorists that kill in the name of Jesus?". Present tense, not past.

How does inquisition explain terror motivation from evolution point of view? Please elaborate.

Christianity at certain stages tried to spread its influence using force and terror. The Inquisition is an example of this stage - Crusades, struggle against heretics, conquistadors. Islam is the youngest religion of the above mentioned, so a propensity for terror can be part of its evolution, but not its essence.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Perfect. Let's continue your explanation. I'll give you one more example - it involves the white man being guilty, so you should be pleased.

Europeans arriving to America in the 16th & 17th century and wiping out the natives almost entirely (mostly due to diseases that they brought). And a similar story for Australia.

What's the conclusion of all those examples (both yours and mine)? It's this: things like religion or immigration can go horribly wrong. The unknown can sometimes be beneficial but sometimes it can be disastrous. People have evolved to be afraid. And fear plays an important role: those who were not afraid enough did not survive.

During the Inquisition - did the Muslim people set out immigration polices and invite the Europeans to live among them? I guess they were wise enough not to do that. They were scared and it was for a good reason.

So why are you so eager to "explain" one side of the story and dismiss the other? Why don't you explain the validity of fear of foreigners? Instead of shaming those who feel it and dismissing them as uneducated bigots.

Well, it is not a pleasure for me to blame any man for anything just because of his religion or color differ ( including whites and cristians). And I dont consider any scared person to be uneducated bigot. But this approach when any foreign muslim is concidered to be potential terrorist really humper to the process of naturalisation / assimilation. You ask why I dont want explain the right to fear - because in my humble opinion, fear can help someone to survive, but can not solve his problem.

Why did the crusades happen? Have you ever thought about that? Or have you just decided in your own mind it was the evil white man who all of a sudden decided he was going to go out and slaughter arabs? Europe had been under siege by Islam for 500 years. Islam had taken over most of Italy, Spain, half of France and was knocking on the doors of Vienna. (The gates of Vienna) Europeans had been watching this take over silencly, not retaliating. Now they had had enough. Arabs were taking hundreds of thousands of european slaves to brutal living conditions in foreign countries. If you look at the number of battles initiated by arabs throughout the centuries vs the crusades, the crusades account for very little of the battles in this era. Youtube "why we are afraid" and watch the lecture.

not 2 mention the war that has claimed millions of Muslims......since 2001

Seems like many of those who decide to enter in this madness is people who lives in European countries for a life time. Surely the environment in which they live, the social problems somehow contribute to their mad decisions. Rarely terrorists are those who landed few weeks ago in European land

There are plenty of US officials in our government that I'd consider terrorist. Terrorism doesn't have a color shape or race. Anyone openly willing to harm others fits the bill in my humble opinion. Great read👍👍

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

This great chart from Europe puts into context the level of terrorism we are currently seeing in the west.. not many young people remember there were sometimes over 1,000 attacks a year in the late 70's.

terrorism-w-europe.png

Source: http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015

I am a muslim myself and i can tell you this ... Islam FORBIDS and CONDEMNS and our prophet and holy book says that whoever kills an innocent Soul(non Militant and that included but not restricted to innocent men, Woman , Kids, Old people) WILL go to HELL and rot in it.
Islam comes from the word Salam which translates to Peace. These Savages that call themselves Isis , Al Qaeda etc.. are not muslims of any form and do not represent and do not know what islam is . They are disgusting animals disguised as human that are trying to sabotage the image of islam. If you ask me , they were created by a third party that have an agenda of ruining the image of muslims and islam.
Moreover ... i would appreciate it if you followed me and check my post out :)
https://steemit.com/foodforthought/@dwehji/is-it-though

But I never see a muslim religious leader strongly, clearly and loudly condemning terrorism. I've seen many even using the quram to try to justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/23/latest-turkish-president-condemns-london-attack.html
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/uae-condemns-heinous-paris-attacks
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats
I can go on but as i said you should do your own research ... If a muslim leader approves these hideous acts than they are terrorists too... I have never seen any western leader condemn america for murdering iraqi civilians in the Iraqi war, or in afghanistan isn't that terrorism too ?Or have we been brainwashed soo badly that when we hear terrorism we directly associate it with islam

Being a Muslim, my religion and my Quran teaches me not to kill anyone, not to harm anyone, respect non Muslims and allow them to follow their own religion. We, Muslims are not even allowed to force any non Muslim to embrace Islam (This is something we see daily in India where Hindus force Muslims to embrace Hinduism)
The concept of an Islamic State is usually presented in a very negative way on the mainstream media. This is not the real picture of Islam that media shows. If you really want to know about Islam and how an Islam State works, please read about Hazrat Umer (R.A) and Harzar Umer Bin Abdul Aziz (R.A).
These people who say that they will create an Islamic State are all false, Islamic state is and had always been created with peace and brotherhood.
Even the concept of Jihad is assumed as all the Muslims want to rule all over the world, no, this is not true.
We are allowed to use weapons against our enemies only when they attack on us and it should be on state or government level, not an individual can do so.
I hope that one day, people see the real image of my religion and they will.

Quite a controversial subject we have here. I mean as opposed to citizens? The statistics speak for themselves. I don't know if they're more likely to or if they already were? Sorry very difficult question!

There are more citizens than immigrants of course so we have to consider that in the statistics. But because the majority of people are citizens the threat will statistically come from the citizens in many cases.

Who is more likely to commit a crime against you? Your neighbor. Most crimes committed are not interracial but by someone of your own race. So if it works this way for crime, we can look at terrorism and if the statistics are similar to the crime statistics then the risks would be similar.

I haven't dug deep into the statistics to prove with certainty but I think policy should be set by statistics and not feelings.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Who is more likely to commit a crime against you? Your neighbor.

And which neighbor is more likely to hurt you: the one who has lived in your neighborhood for many years (or even generations) or the one who has just moved in and feels alienated and without any roots?

Human emotions don't originate from random speculations - they are deeply rooted in past experiences and might carry wisdom accumulated thorough many generations. Dismissing them as baseless prejudice is not smart.

Fear of foreigners, even if unsupported by statistical data, is part of human wisdom.

Statistically speaking most crimes are committed by people you know. Fear of foreigners if unsupported by the statistics is definitely irrational so cannot be considered "wisdom". It's human ignorance if the statistics do not support it.

Chances are if you've been a victim of a crime it wasn't a foreigner who did it. If we look at serial killers, or robbers, or rapists, do they tend to be foreigners? Don't get me wrong, foreigners do commit crimes but often it's against their own group.

It's human ignorance if the statistics do not support it.

I think the opposite: it's human ignorance (and also arrogance) to throw away thousands of years of human evolution just because you've computed some statistical data.

Statistics help but it's just a tool, just as your brain helps but it's just a tool.

I guess I only believe in the science, in reason, and in pragmatic ethics. If it's not evidence based then it's not objective. I mean every human has their feelings about anyone else and should we all make our critical decisions about what the laws should be based on how we feel about others?

I mean what if some of us don't like obese people and make laws which are discriminatory against people who are obese? I mean if emotions are setting the laws then ethically speaking if we follow what you just said (emotivism) then it's not even wrong because laws wouldn't have to be justified by actual evidence.

I rely on statistics because I know my brain is limited and can be wrong.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Nobody suggests that the legal system should be based on emotions. That's absurd.

What I criticize however is shaming people for expressing their fears of foreigners. Or rubbing statistical data into their faces to shut them up. Openness has to come from inside, cannot be enforced upon people.

Distrust to a different race is a healthy behavior shaped by thousands of years of evolution. You cannot override it easily with the rational part of your brain.

no =D

No. they are eople like we are and are imigratints just because of the state of their country and the wars that are happening there daily. No need to judge!

asking this question is like asking what was there before the big bang? (if there was one ever) .... geeee ALL of the USA is a population descendant from immigrants ...

You cannot find more law-abiding people in US than immifrants who came legally and go through the naturalization process (resident's visa > Green card > citizenship)

Is this statistically proven?

This is because every traffic ticket is lowed immigrant's chance to get a Green Card and become a citizen. Every crime could completelly remove from this queue.

It's nor proven statistically, it's proven by a naturalization law > only law-abiding candidats can become citizens

I'm immigrant who wait in a line for a citizenship.

Agreed ! I am Muslim Too ! Terrorism have no religion ! i am living in muslim society and i spend almost all my time with muslims .. i dont think any one who support Terrorism, Or prone to kill other . Every one need to think who is terrorist and who is behind terrorism! Dont ignore Afghanistan . Afghanistan is ruined by Russians and NATO not by taliban Nor ISIS ...

Exactly my point in my next post due in few mins, welldone @dana-edwards

Well I don't believe immigrants are more likely to be terrorists unless they have be poisoned mentally or if they have any powerful incantations
Most of them are normal people like you and I

Good read. followed and upvoted!

In my opinion terrorists can be anyone who falls for ISIS ideals whether foreigner or local. Isis targets anyone who is not strong in their will/conviction. After they brainwash them there is no way back and such people end up staging deadly attacks. Its a tough task for police to keep tabs on this.I think as a society we need to help the police. Anytime u see something suspicious report it. Anytime u suspect someone, please report even if its your dad or brother. This way we can all be safe and minimize the ISIS hatred n evil murder. Thats just my 2cents..thanks for posting

Who doesn't seem suspicious to some people sometimes?

can we just enforce the laws...can we use common sense...can we see the media is "hiding truth"...it all adds up as to something that needs review

Why should we enforce corrupt laws put there but corrupt officials?

i think they are corrupt as well....but we are a nation of laws. I cannot pick and choose what laws to ignore without ramifications....so I abide. Do it think that other break laws with impunity -- of course -- both repub/dems...and if they they broke our laws they should be in prison.

99% of immigrants just want to work and have a job.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

It all boils down to Ignorance, Terrorism is an Ideology/Phylosophy and you cant kill those with a bullet. There is nothing more powerful as a Concept and nothing more dangerous than a Misconception.

thank you dana.

Good goyim, keep propagating your own decline through ethnic replacement. The other ethnic groups thank you for keeping you country and area warm for them while they were walking into your border.

Divide and conquer? That doesn't work on everyone so easily. You do realize people of different ethnic groups can marry and reproduce together? You do realize cultures should be able to evolve?

Evolve in what way? through the segregation and cessation of entire countries?
Have you seen the terrorist attacks in the UK and Germany happening weekly? What about Sweden now becoming the rape capital of the world due to immigration?
What about the Muslim no go zones in Frances?
Evolve? More like regress.
I will post a black pigeon speaks video on my blog soon, educate yourself buddy.

The countries are going to evolve into merely schools of thought. I don't know why country of origin matters when you don't think in a way compatible with that other person. And if you do think in a way compatible with that other person then what difference does it make what country they originated from or what race, gender, etc?

The criteria you are using in my opinion are "superficial connections". You have to strive for deeper human connections if you want to evolve into the next "human+machine+blockchain" era. You're concerned about rapists, rape culture, race, countries, etc. I'm concerned about the evolution of the human species, my own survival, involuntary ignorance, and involuntary suffering.

Do you realize believe that dividing people is going to disempower the terrorists?

Your missing the point and pretending to understand the argument.
Its not working for the people who voted, mass immigration does nothing but create a burden for the country and community.
Give me one country that benefits from mass immigration economically, socially and why.

Divide by closing the border?
OK, apparently mass rape, terrorism and segregation dosent divide people to you.
Tell me then, how would ending mass immigration prevent the "evolution" of humans? Are you to beleive that mixed race individuals are more healthy?
LOL thats HILARIOUS.