Top Menu

Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslims… And Why America is to Blame For It

(Updated – see below)

Following the 9/11 attacks, President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), both of which gave “the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States.”  IRTPA also established the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which began publishing annual terrorism reports since 2005.  The 2011 report, released to the public last week, ominously warned of “the persistent treat terrorism poses.”

Yet, the NCTC’s own data belies its predetermined conclusions: the threat of terrorism to the average American is virtually non-existent.  In the entire year of 2011, exactly zero civilians in the U.S. were killed by terrorism.  In fact, not a single civilian in the U.S. has been killed by Islamic terrorism since 9/11, well over a decade ago.  Put another way: more Americans are killed from being crushed to death by their television sets than by terrorism, a realization that should put “the persistent threat” of terrorism into some much-needed perspective.

The same is the case across the pond: Europol has released yearly terrorism reports since 2006.  Going through these, one cannot find a single civilian in Europe who has been killed by Islamic terrorism.  (It should be noted, however, that the as of yet unreleased 2012 report will no doubt reflect the Toulouse shootings, which resulted in the death of four civilians.)  Indeed, the truth is that less than 1% of terrorism in Europe is done by Muslims.

In other words, the threat of Islamic terrorism in the Western world is very minimal.  It has been grossly exaggerated in order to justify the multiple wars being waged in Muslim majority countries.  The charge is led by anti-Muslim ideologues, but the overarching premise–that Islamic terrorism is a great threat to Western civilization (even an existential threat to it)–is accepted by virtually all segments of American society.

*  *  *  *  *

Not only do Muslims inflict zero civilian deaths in America and Europe, they bear the brunt of terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia.  The 2011 NCTC report found that the vast majority of deaths from religious terrorism were in fact Muslims.  The report reads:

• In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.

• Muslim majority countries bore the greatest number of attacks involving 10 or more deaths, with Afghanistan sustaining the highest number (47), followed by Iraq (44), Pakistan (37), Somalia (28), and Nigeria (12).

• Afghans also suffered the largest number of fatalities overall with 3,245 deaths, followed by Iraqis (2,958), Pakistanis (2,038), Somalis (1,013), and Nigerians (590).

The bulk of these terrorist attacks were carried out by Sunni extremists, including Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (see p.11 of the report).

Based on these two facts–1) that Muslims are the number one victims of Islamic terrorism, and 2) that Sunni extremists such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are most responsible for this—the American mind, fully ensconced in the national mythology, reaches the conclusion that Muslims ought to support America’s War on Terror; or, worded in an even more imperial tone:

Muslims should be grateful to us for fighting for them against the Bad Guys.

And yet, grateful is the last word to describe Muslim sentiment.  Muslims around the globe (including in Afghanistan and Iraq), overwhelmingly disapprove of the so-called War on Terror.  In fact, they hold very negative views of the United States (at least in regard its foreign policy), viewing “‘U.S. interference in the Arab world’ as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East.”  This, in spite of the majority holding very negative views towards Al-Qaeda and its tactics.

So, why aren’t these Moozlums grateful for all that we’ve done for them?

It’s because they know what is painfully obvious: it is U.S. military intervention in the region that is most responsible for creating the problem of terrorism.

This becomes very clear if we look at the three countries that have reported the highest number of terrorism-related fatalities (according to NCTC data):  Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  These three countries alone accounted for 64% of terrorism-related fatalities in 2005, 74% in 2006, 77% in 2007, 59% in 2008, 61% in 2009, 66% in 2010, and 68% in 2011.

Iraqis specifically have suffered the most from terrorism: according to the NCTC, from 2005 to 2007 some 55-65% of terrorism-related fatalities occurred in Iraq alone.  The 2009 report declared: “Since 2005, Iraq continues to be the country with the most attacks and fatalities due to terrorism.”

The report also stated that the group most responsible for terrorism was (and continues to be) Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).  What the NCTC failed to point out, however, was that (in the words of Barack Obama) “Al-Qaeda in Iraq…didn’t exist before our invasion.”  Al-Qaeda in Iraq was founded with the intent to “[e]xpel the Americans from Iraq” and topple the interim government propped up by the United States.  The Iraqis can thank the United States for creating the conditions that spawned this terrorist group, as well as for the resulting violence.

In fact, is it very easy to see the correlation between the U.S. invasion and terrorism in Iraq using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), which has tracked terrorist incidents for several decades.

In the year before the Iraq War (from 3/19/2002 to 3/19/2003), there were only 13 terrorist attacks and 14 terrorism-related deaths in Iraq.  In the year after the Iraq War (from 3/20/2003 to 3/20/2004), there were 225 terrorist attacks and 1,074 terrorism-related deaths.  In other words, the U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in an over 1600% increase in terrorist attacks and an over 7500% increase in terrorism-related deaths in just one year.  

At the height of the Iraq War, there were 3,968 terrorist attacks, resulting in 9,497 deaths–which amounts to an over 30,000% increase in terrorist incidents and over 67,000% increase in terrorism-related deaths as compared to pre-war years.

Here is a graphical representation to help visualize the data from RDWTI:

With the U.S. invasion Iraq went from having a virtually non-existent terrorism problem to becoming the world champion of terrorism, a title it continued to hold up until 2010.  It is difficult to attribute this to mere coincidence.

In 2011, Iraq dropped to second place, being overtaken by another one of America’s arenas of war: Afghanistan.  This war-torn country is a second example of how U.S. military intervention created the problem of terrorism.

According to the NCTC reports, the Taliban have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorism-related deaths in Afghanistan.  Yet, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were not terrorists, at least not how the term is commonly employed today by the United States.  Certainly, they were theocratic tyrants who imposed a frighteningly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam on the Afghan people.  But, the Taliban at this time weren’t associated with Al-Qaeda style tactics such as suicide attacks, car bombs, or IED explosives.

The RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents supports this assertion, recording only two incidents involving the Taliban in the year prior to 9/11: an assassination attempt of a rebel leader and a rocket attack.

As government documents reveal, it was only after “[t]he Taliban was driven from power in late 2001, during the course of a United States-led invasion of Afghanistan” that “the Taliban has operated as a violent insurgent organization–bent on driving the United States and its allies from Afghanistan…resort[ing] to armed violence: car bombings; suicide strikes; rocket attacks; kidnappings; and murder.”  The Taliban resorted to terrorist tactics in their fight against foreign occupiers and the U.S.-installed puppet regime in Kabul.  This conflict, almost wholly a result of U.S. actions, is responsible for the violence and wave of terrorism that has rocked Afghanistan for the last decade.

Using the data from RDWTI, we find that in the year just prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there were only three terrorist attacks in the country, resulting in eight fatalities.  By 2008, the number of terrorist attacks had jumped to 450 and the number of terrorism-related deaths to 1,228.  In other words, the U.S. War in Afghanistan resulted in a 15,000% increase in both terrorism related incidents and deaths. 

Here’s what it looks graphically:

The U.S.-led War in Afghanistan has created a worsening terrorism problem for Pakistan as well.  There are many complex reasons for this spike in violence within Pakistan (which are beyond the scope of this article), but all are ultimately rooted in America’s War on Terror.  Using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, we find that there was an over 650% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan as a result of America’s war (568 deaths in 2008 as compared to 73 in 2000).

Lest Democratic supporters be tempted to think that the blame belongs to George Bush’s administration alone, let them be informed that war-making has bipartisan consensus.  President Barack Obama has continued the legacy of warring in the Muslim world.

We can actually trace American war-making using Muslim corpses as an indicator.  Obama promised to shift focus from Iraq to Afghanistan.  U.S. troop levels in Iraq were a quarter of what they were in 2011 as they were in 2007; coincidentally, in the same time span Iraqi fatalities from terrorism fell to a quarter of what they were (according to NCTC data).

Meanwhile, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama tripled U.S. troops in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2011.  According to NCTC data, between 2008 and 2011 there was an over 130% increase in terrorist attacks and 68% increase in terrorism-related deaths in Afghanistan.

Obama has also stepped up the war in Pakistan.  NCTC data reveals a 500% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan from 2005 (338) to 2011 (2,033).  For the past few years, Pakistan has earned the dubious rank of third when it comes to terrorism, behind only Iraq and Afghanistan.

*  *  *  *  *

Before the so-called War on Terror, levels of terrorism in Muslim lands were similar to what they were in other parts of the world.  For example, the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents indicates that, up until the U.S.-led War on Terror, the Middle East and Latin America had similar incidents of terrorism; it was only after the U.S.-led War on Terror that terrorism in the Middle East shot way up:

In the year 2000, there were a total of 404 terrorist attacks in all of the Middle East and South Asia.  By 2006, this number jumped to 5,738–an increase of more than 1300%!  This is what America’s War on Terror has done for terrorism in the Muslim world.

The same trend holds for terrorist attacks globally.  In the year 2000, there were 1,151 total terrorist attacks.  By 2006, this number had rocketed up to 6,660.  In other words, the U.S.-led War on Terror caused a more than 470% increase in worldwide terrorism.

Islamophobes would have us believe that it is Islam itself that is responsible for the upsurge in terrorism.  Most Americans, even many liberals, believe that “radical Islam” is the root of the problem.  The data, however, suggests that it is the United States of America that is most responsible for creating the conditions on the ground that inexorably lead to terrorism.

It is difficult to deny the correlation between the U.S.-led War on Terror and the rise of terrorism worldwide.  Is it not a great irony of our times that the very policies designed to combat terrorism are most responsible for creating terrorism?  To add another layer of perverse irony, the steep rise in terrorism–a direct result of U.S. action–is used to justify further such action.

In the words of Glenn Greenwald:

How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?

But it is Muslims who not only have to deal with American “inva[sions], droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men”, but also have to bear the brunt of the terrorism that inevitably follows.  It is truly a double whammy for them.

The vast majority of Americans will never face religious terrorism in their lives: less than 1% of victims of religious terrorism are U.S. civilians.  Meanwhile, up to 97% are Muslims.

It is truly an Orwellian world we live in.  The nation most responsible for creating rampant terrorism lays the blame on the victims of such terrorism.  Muslims are told that “they aren’t doing enough to combat terror”, even while Americans do their utmost to reflexively continue such action as would ensure the continued survival–nay, the rapid proliferation–of terror.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

Update I (6/19/12):

The original version of the article suffered from minor mathematical errors, which have now been corrected (h/t JSB).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Máme se bát hrozby islámského terorismu? | Občanské sdružení ateistů České republiky()

  • Pingback: The J Word: Jihad, Between Hype and Reality | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • AbdullA Realman

    first of all Thank You Usa for killing saddam hussain i cant be greatfull for u enough :)

    second….there is no such thing as islamic terrorist …only terrorist …cuz islam = peace only :)

    am iraqi and all people believe the one whose supporting terror is saudi arabia + usa :)

    peace sons of bitches

  • http://leonet sameer

    America Is the begest terrorist country In world.. They Started first… Tery johnes terrorist make a movie Against Of islam and muslim .. they start Again War between Muslim And America.. Its Mean truly terrorist country America ..

  • Pingback: 82-97% av offren för radikal islamistisk terrorism är… muslimer! |()

  • Pingback: 82-97% av offren för islamistisk terrorism är… muslimer! « Sverige är inte världens navel!()

  • Pingback: TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s “War on Terror” | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: What are the facts about afghanistan? - Page 4 - Christian Forums()

  • Pingback: TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire's "War on Terror" | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Faisal Rathor

    Let us see what West and European people will do (love those who invade their countries by force!) or (blow them if they is no other choice in order to expel them)?

    I hope such condition befall on them so they will feel what terrorism mean!

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    Are you saying that the ideology is the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Northern Ireland or Sri Lanka?

    Iraq and Afghanistan, I assume, involve versions at least of the same ideology, but many different radical ideologies have been associated with terror. Galleanist Anarchists carried out bombings in the 1920a, including one of Wall Street. The IRA was largely Marxist, as were the original Palestinian terrorist groups and groups allied with them such as the Japanese Red Army and the German Red Army Faction. Timothy McVeigh was a Neo-Nazi. When groups such as this actually come to power, state terror often ensues. There is the period of the French Revolution simply known as “The Terror,” Stalin’s “Great Terror,” etc.

    does your theory explain why Gazans and West Bank Palestinians engaged in limited terrorist acts and had minimal restrictions imposed upon them for two decades before the First Intifada?

    Actual “outbreaks” of terror, the beginnings of periods with frequent terror, are like other complex historical events and trends. Pick your theory of history.

  • Faisal

    I was some what both bemused and amused after reading the article (which was indeed pretty spot on) and the reactions towards it. One thing I noticed is that how easily people are deceived, they are deceived to such extent that they are blaming each others’ religion. But the blame actually lies somewhere else. Some simple facts of the past 100 years are enough to prove it. If you look back in last century, there has been barely a decade which didn’t have any war. And most of the wars are mostly created. Created by a group of people who benefit from war and who are so much engrossed in wealth and money that they lost the sense of humanity to care about other poor human’s life. These people are mainly the arm dealers like those of fictional characters such as Professor Moriarty of Sherlock Holmes (indeed in the movie THE GAME OF SHADOWS Moriarty wanted to rage war by assassination which is quite similar to the way the first world war started). These arms dealers create anarchy and havoc and provoke others to retaliate and thus start a war while also sell arms to gain their business profit. These arm dealers made the normal American citizens their blind slaves. The Americans can barely see anything. People like Rupert Murdoch is helping these arm dealers by using his media tool to make the Americans blind. So, I hope all of you here would stop blaming each others’ religion. All Abrahamic religions somewhat similar and very near to being accurate. So, try to respect each other, and think how we can stop the aforementioned corrupt minds (corrupted by Satan). And by the way, there’s been serious killing of poor Muslims going on in Myanmar, please try to do something about it. May be we can help them. May peace be with all of you.

  • Just Stopping By

    @Yitzhak Goodman:

    I am actually pretty sensitive to post-hoc fallacies. But, as I noted above, Danios used two examples (Iraq and Afghanistan) and a control (Latin America) as well as provided a logical argument. Does that remove all possibility of post-hoc fallacy? Of course not. But it does sound compelling. And, if I read you right, you do admit that the U.S. actions did in fact lead to an increase in terrorism, the point I thought you were originally objecting to.

    Now, I think that you are objecting to the fact that we have to consider “the ideology behind the terror” as conducive to having the terror occur. (Again, it would help if you actually laid out your thesis.) Are you saying that the ideology is the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Northern Ireland or Sri Lanka? Since you brought up Palestinian terrorist groups from a while ago, does your theory explain why Gazans and West Bank Palestinians engaged in limited terrorist acts and had minimal restrictions imposed upon them for two decades before the First Intifada? I really do want to understand your point, but first I have to understand exactly what it is.

    Shabbat shalom.

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    Thirdly I notice you seem to have given up trying to argue with JSB

    I replied to him.

    I never said that

    No, Danios did.

    Secondly , you are putting the cart before the horse as they say where I was brought up. If you look at the charts above it is obvious that increases in terror came AFTER agressive actions by the USA.

    Sigh.

  • Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69

    Yitzchat said
    “Right, I’m a “hater,” who has “learned a big word without really knowing what it means.””

    I never said that but if the cap fits ,wear it ;-)
    Sir David

  • Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69

    Yitzchat wrote
    “Most people on the right don’t have any problem recognizing that the terrorists used terror to fight back against the war on terror, and while they were at it, they figured that terror would be a great tool to pursue the rest of their agenda.”

    Firstly I like the way you use the third person to speak of “the right ” like a) it doesnt include you :-)
    and b) you have the authority to speak on behalf of the ‘right’Who gave this authority ?;-)

    Secondly , you are putting the cart before the horse as they say where I was brought up. If you look at the charts above it is obvious that increases in terror came AFTER agressive actions by the USA.

    Thirdly I notice you seem to have given up trying to argue with JSB and Danios and to argue with myself This will now add a third stand making the whole thread even more unclear . Your aim ,I believe, when you cannot win an arguement.

    Sir David
    Vice Chair
    West Anjou leftist mooslim Alliance
    Winner of the Marine Le Pen award for Multiculturalism 2011

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    You assume that effective debate is what Yitzchak is after

    Right, I’m a “hater,” who has “learned a big word without really knowing what it means.”

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    Your first post on this thread was, in total: “Post-hoc fallacy.”

    It kind of hits you in the face in the original post if you are sensitive to that sort of thing. The informal fallacies are very familiar to many people. Ahmed claimed that he “exposed” my use of a straw-man argument.

    To be a little more effective, can you give us the thesis that you support here?

    I don’t think the original point required a whole analysis of the reason for terror in Iraq and I don’t think the discussion here requires it either. The ideology behind the terror is obviously an important part of it.

  • http://judeopundit.blogspot.com Yitzchak Goodman

    Sir David, I am not “a Humean skeptic about causality in general.”

    I dont understand how any rational person cannot se the contribution of the so called war on terror to its own continuation

    The title of the post ends “why America is to blame,” which sounds like no other factor is being accorded much significance, an impression reinforced by the wording and approach of much of the rest of the post. “Contribution” seems to imply a lot more room for other factors in the analysis. And Danios ended up, in a comment addressed to me, writing “What I am arguing is that the United States is *also* to blame.” This all started as an objection to the post. Most people on the right don’t have any problem recognizing that the terrorists used terror to fight back against the war on terror, and while they were at it, they figured that terror would be a great tool to pursue the rest of their agenda.

Powered by Loon Watchers