Pick this "terrorist" argument to pieces

[crocodile deathroll]

Here the is the chosen quote from a highly controversial website in Australia here (http://www.muslimterrorists.com/index1.html)


Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.



I personally think this is a false division fallacy, and I can play that game too......"Not all Thiests are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Thiests".

CDR

[excreationist]

I don't think it is a logical fallacy... though that statement may be false. You could look at that statement as involving two sets that intersect each other (like a Venn diagram)... the set of terrorists would be small - e.g. in the thousands or tens of thousands. The set of Muslims would be large - in the dozens or hundreds of millions. Most of the terrorist circle could be intersecting with the Muslim circle.
Most of the terrorists that Australians and Americans would be aware of in recent times would be Muslim, but there is also the IRA (I think), and terrorist-type acts in other places like South America and Africa, etc. Some think that the U.S. uses some terrorist-type tactics itself...

[crocodile deathroll]

Also in America a terrorist acts by a non-Muslim is often dismissed as not a terrorist act but a hate crime such as attacks of abortion clinics, gay murders and the Oklahoma attack as well as the thousands of other murders by hand guns, that may even be enough to shift the lions share of terrorist's acts away from Muslims.

There is also a rising tide of Christian terrorism in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Uganda and Sudan.
All Fundamentalisms with their roots in irrationalism may provide far more fertile ground terrorism. So that quote by Oldfield's website does not go to the root cause.

[Clutch]

It's not an argument. It's just an assertion.

And it says as much about the selective application of the term "terrorist" as anything else.

One reply: Don't you mean to say that most freedom fighters are Muslims?

[DoubleDutchy]

Not all bachelors are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are bachelors.

[anti-X]

Not all feminists are women, but nearly all Amerikan women are feminists!

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Clutch
One reply: Don't you mean to say that most freedom fighters are Muslims?
:D

One could go to the Frontline World site, search for "Tamil Tigers" and get some relevant facts. E.g., most suicide bombings are committed by Tamils.

But you'd be wasting your time. Israeli settlers killing Palestinian civilians aren't terrorists, of course. Terrorism is too ill defined to offer a meaningful term for debate. To the site cited in the OP is sort of correct by definition, since one can always hand wave their way out of the word "terrorist" when it is applied to a favored group, just like Clutch suggests. Palestinians aren't terrorists, they're guerillas fighting a nasty war against a nasty opponent. Chechens aren't terrorists, they're insurgents fighting for self-determination. Yada, yada.

[crocodile deathroll]

Not all belt wearers are terrorists , but nearly all terrorists wear belts.


Why didn't anyone think of that?

[Quantum Ninja]

Not all people are terrorists, but all terrorists are people.

[paul30]

I think it's factually false.

The greatest purveyor of terror (attacks against civilians) is the US. Has been for years.

The US has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than were killed in the 9/11 attacks, and lots more in Iraq (not counting the hundreds of thousands consigned to death by "sanctions").

Needless to say, US motives are not Muslim but imperial and economic.

[Frotiw]

"I'll mingle in after months of absence"

Sorry if I repeat the intention of Excreationist.

The logic in the arguments is not unsound meaning that it is not a falacy. However as students of logic will remember(or should) truth value and soundness is not related. The argument may very well be sound but have a false truth-value.

A quickly concocted argument "made for explantory purpose":

-All aliens are green
-Jox is an alien

Therefor: Jox is green

-This is completely sound argument however this only tells us the logical structure of the arguments is acceptable it does not tell us whereither aliens exist or if so whereither they are green or not. Or as already mentioned we cannot learn the truth-value of an argument but logic alone only it's soundness. On a sidenote and less important, the "nearly all" kind of blurs the logical power in the argument. I mean "nearly all": what does that mean will 1/3, 2/3 or 4/5 suffice(what is enough to be nearly all?). So there may be a convention most agree on(e.g. 4/5) but that is only a convention and is not relevant in logic.

As for the factual claim stated I disagree. First one must ofcause agree on definition on "terrorism". I mean this word is so ill-defined and blured that little agrement can be achived. Being from Denmark I bring an example from here. During the nazy occupation the danish resistance force might very well be called terrorist(following a very well accepted definition) as they where fighting against the nazi-regime without the approval of nation(Danish goverment) by the nazi-government. Ofcouse by danes(and US and allied) they where considered freedom fighters and not terrorist. Ofcouse same argument goes for many many similar groups (palestinian groups, tibetians groups, Indonesian groups etc). I don't know how was in the US but in Europe, though involvement in Afghanistans often was understood(as reasonable), the was some humanright-relevant concern on the US declaration that the prisoners was terrorist(meaning no rights) and not military prisoners(whom has lost of rights). Anyway my point is the "terrorist" concept is vary vague which history has proven many times and still does.

More specific on the factual claim: I once saw a list of terrorist groups(I've searched and searched for it without luck), this list did feature many many other groups besides islamic including: christian, hindu, socialist(remember Baader-Meinhoff), nazi, Northern Irish, US survivalist, Basker(ETA), Northern Italian liberation, Japanese, Southern Amercican and Enviromentalist terror groups. However I easily agree that the focus is by far much more directed against the islamic groups(especially after 9/11), however the focus of attention of media and puplic is one thing!

Finaly: Ok even if it actually is a fact that most terror groups are islamic then what is that actually meant to prove.

"Almost all terrorist are islamic" -> proberly hinting we(non-islamic) should combat islam?

"Almost all terroist are eating "sunday ice-cream" from McDonalds every monday". -> should we fight people eating icecream from McDonalds with the same intention?

Point being thought it may be a completely truth statement(Islamic and Terrorist) who is to say whereither the first relation is important and not the other. There are plenty of islamic terrorist groups who more or less accidently happens to be islamic instead of some other religion. E.g. terrorist groups who combat the government for political reason but accidentially happens to be islamic(just as everybody else from the country, including the very government the fight). Point being: is the religious stance always relevant. If true is it really interesting and relevant that all terrorist are islamic.

Cheers Frotiw

[Ojuice5001]

There are definitions of "terrorism" that include the Boston Tea Party. After all, it was an act of destroying a large amount of someone else's property to achieve a political goal.

Patriots would like you to think that the American Revolution was a rebellion against obvious tyranny, but really, I can think of reasons why the colonists were overreacting to their problems. For instance, the Stamp Act was one of their big grievances, but it was needed to pay for war debts that were run up in defense of the colonies.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Frotiw
The logic in the arguments is not unsound meaning that it is not a falacy. However as students of logic will remember(or should) truth value and soundness is not related. The argument may very well be sound but have a false truth-value. Actually, as students of logic should remember, "truth-value" and soundness are intimately related.

You're thinking of validity. Your sample argument is valid, but because its premises are not true, it is unsound. If it were sound, then by definition its conclusion would be true.

In any case, the quoted sentence from the OP is not an argument of any kind, valid, invalid, sound or unsound. It's just an assertion.

[Frotiw]

Clutch, your completely right, however it is my english skills that are rightfully to be blamed. I simply mixed up soundness and validity during my translation to english.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by Frotiw
I simply mixed up soundness and validity during my translation to english.Oh, well. Your point was clear in any case.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Here the is the chosen quote from a highly controversial website in Australia here (http://www.muslimterrorists.com/index1.html)


I personally think this is a false division fallacy, and I can play that game too......"Not all Thiests are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Thiests".

CDR The problem rests with the word "nearly". Define "nearly".