[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please do provide empirical evidence here. Remember to include all historical instances of terrorism as well.

Forgive me, but I did actually "laugh out loud" when I read what you wrote here. But I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of your inquiry nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean ANYTHING?!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by 'support'?

That is the distinction I'm making between "terrorism" and "acts of terrorism". Let's include 'funding' and other direct assistance of terrorism as constituting 'acts of terrorism' -- or, at least, let's call it actions that we would legitimately call criminal. Just for simplicity's sake -- as I'm not claiming 'acts of terrorism' is necessarily the best way to describe the various direct support mechanisms that could aid terrorism.

Let's exclude 'sympathize with terrorists' or 'agrees with their ends' or even 'agrees with their means'. Surely you can make a distinction between merely sympathizing with terrorism, and with participating in terrorism itself -- or more succinctly, you can make a distinction between thoughts and actions, correct?

Now, how many Muslims would you guess are engaged in acts of terrorism? -- keeping in mind that no statistics exist which are even close to accurate -- but ALSO keeping in mind that, as there are 1 billion estimated Muslims in the world, TEN MILLION of those Muslims would have to be engaging in terrorism to equal 1% of the world's Muslims -- and lastly, of course, keeping in mind that 'engaging' in terrorism implies some kind of action, and not merely thought or sympathy.

Clearly you mean something by 'support', but I'm just not sure what. I'm all ears as to how you propose we define 'support' of terrorism.

If we're talking about Bluff's OP, I don't have anything relevant to add on whether or not we should condemn Muslim groups cheering the acquittal of a terrorist sympathizer. It's a legitimate debate to have, and I think it's more than valid to debate the condemnation of those who support terrorism, etc. But it's a debate I'm not concerned with here.

But getting back to the point at hand: when BluffTHIS says lets "look at Muslims and how they interpret it (it=Koran) and act on it" -- let's do just what Bluff asks we do.

We can probably say, with great confidence, that 99% + of Muslims have not participated in terrorism in any kind of significant way.

So, using Bluff's standard, by looking at the actions of Muslims, I think we're forced to conclude that there's nothing inherent about Islam or the Koran that would lead us to claim it's intrinsically belligerent or violent.

-------------------

On side note, let's take apart your argument that if 'support' weren't significantly greater than '1%', 'terrorism' wouldn't be happening.

How many Americans support the neo-Nazis like Timothy McVeigh? Did the Oklahoma City Bombings 'still go on'?

[ QUOTE ]
Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say, for instance, you're correct: Palestinians dance in the streets after hearing of 9/11. What exactly are the implications here?

Nuke em'? Outlaw dancing?

Was there some political reason why Palestinians may have been dancing? Or is it only because they're Muslim?

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay -- again, was not Bluff's claim that we should look at actions ? Most Muslims aren't terrorists. So I think I've got my answer, if we're using Bluff's standard.