Even More Islamic Math

Hot Air’s Quote of the day is:

“Seven percent of 1.3 billion leaves us with . . . 91 million radical Islamists. And to think we were concerned!”

Well, yes. I’ve got a category (The Tiny Percentage of Radical Islamists) dedicated to posts with that sort of math, and I’m quite sure I wasn’t the first person to think of it. I hope the concept finally gets some traction. Since this study came up with 7% (as opposed to the UK study that came in at 13%), let’s run with those numbers and see if they can be so cavalierly dismissed.

Since it’s unlikely the entire 7% (again, that’s 91 million) of these “political radicals” would actually do anything but grumble amongst themselves about the Great Satan or at most, join Islamic Rage Boy at a flag burning, let’s guess only 7% of them would be willing to perform a terrorist act. That’s 6,370,000 people.

Now lets guess how many would be effective - sticking with the 7%, that’s 445,900 effective terrorists, if the 7% of the 7% of the 7% estimate is accurate.

All of those people aren’t going to have the connections needed to perform a large scale terrorist attack, so take it to the next 7% level. That would be 31,213 political radicals who are willing, can act effectively, and have the connections to conduct a large-scale terrorist attack. All theory, of course. The only number we can be sure of is that 7% in the study who actually admitted their views. But out of 91 million people who believe, I think it’s quite reasonable to conclude that there are 31,000 would would and could act on their beliefs.

Now let’s hand it to the Department of Homeland Security and guess that they monitor 93% of these terrorists in spite of the fact that Congress hinders them for political gain and the media proudly exposes legal, effective, classified programs - the 7% that goes unmonitored is 2,178 people. Is is possible or reasonable to conclude there are 2,000 people in the world with the desire and ability to conduct a major terrorist attack? If the answer is yes, are a mere 2,100 people worth bothering with?

Nineteen took down the WTC and hit the Pentagon. One person with the right chemicals or germs in Grand Central Station could effectively shut down New York for weeks, costing thousands of lives and millions or even billions of dollars.

Over 8,000 aliens are currently taking flight lessons, being granted FAA certifications and are flying planes without undergoing a required background check by TSA.*  Any chance even 7% of them  - 560 people - mean us harm?   If you think that number is ridiculously high,  reduce it again - 7% of that is 39 people.  Nothing to worry about, I’m sure.

Dalia Mogahed, Esposito’s co-author, says, “A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority.” How right she is. We need to find out from one billion rational human beings why they largely refuse to stand up for humanity and dignity instead of cowering in the face of fascist thugs. They’re the only Westerners this study challenges.

Pulling some more numbers out of my hat - business networkers live by the “300 Rule” - everyone knows at least 300 people. So that means that there are 653,400 who could potentially turn our theoretical 2,178 effective terrorists in. We’re relying on those family members, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. Someday maybe we’ll see an Islamic Neighborhood Watch which will stop terrorism at its source, but not until the consequences for silence are worse than the bondage in which this vast majority of moderates choose to live. Alternatively, maybe we’re just fooling ourselves. Maybe it’s passive agreement, not passive disagreement, that causes their silence. Time will tell.

[*Added after I saw it in the headlines at Hot Air.]

Radical Islamic Math from the Daily Mail

I have a whole category on this topic - I’m glad to see media finally picking up on the concept that although percentages involved may be small, there is a large enough group of radical Islamists in the West to be genuinely concerned about:

One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide

What’s that mean in real numbers?

Mr Rafiq, an adviser to the Government’s preventing extremism taskforce, said: “A percentage of people actually agree and support proactively the people that are deciding to blow themselves up.

“It varies, it can be 7 per cent, 5 per cent, 9 per cent.”

With 1.6million Muslims living in the UK, nine per cent is the equivalent of 144,000 people supporting terrorism.

Just in the UK. Again, all of those people are not going to become suicide bombers themselves. Most of them will be satisfied with promoting the concept, and some will put their money where their mouth is. But if just 9% of that 144,000 decided to stake their lives on their beliefs, that’s 12,960. If a mere 1% did, that’s still 1,400. Just in the UK. That’s a lot of suicide bombers. To minimize it further - if a thousandth of a percent acted, that’s 14.

Consider the damage 4 terrorists did in London on 7/7 and 19 did in the U.S. on 9/11.

Link to Pursuing Holiness and track back your latest and greatest here!

Trackback using Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackposted to Read more

Pew: 102,876,651 Muslims Approve of Suicide Bombing

According to Pew, fewer Muslims today believe suicide bombing is always or sometimes justified than did five years ago.

This reduction is good news and Pew’s take on it is quite positive:

Dwindling Muslim Support for Terrorism

The marked decline in the acceptance of suicide bombing is one of several findings that suggest a possible broader rejection of extremist tactics among many in the Muslim world. In many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has fallen there also have been large drops in support for Osama bin Laden. For example, the percentage of Jordanian Muslims who have confidence in bin Laden as a world leader has fallen 36 percentage points since 2003 while the proportion who say suicide bombing is sometimes or always justified has dropped 20 points.

But keep it in perspective. It’s good news that far fewer people think this is an acceptable method of achieving political goals. However, using the percentages provided by the Pew poll and each country’s Muslim population according to the CIA World Factbook, we can deduce that 102,876,651 Muslims in the countries listed still find suicide bombing an acceptable option.

Few Muslims who believe suicide bombings are acceptable in the abstract will act on those beliefs. However, if only 5% acted, there would be over 5,143,832 suicide bombings. If only 1%, there would be 1,028,766. If a tenth of a percent acted, that would be 102,876. The truth is that while the percentages involved might be small, the actual numbers are significant, especially considering the damage 19 people (9/11/2001) or even 4 people (7/7/2005) can do.

In May, 2007, Pew reported that “by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” The Associated Press spun the headline furiously, trying to find an acceptable angle to present the information that approximately 752,000 Muslims in America did see a conflict between their faith and modern society. Buried in this Pew survey on Muslim Americans on page 54, it states that a mere 5% of Muslims in the United States express a favorable opinion of al Qaeda. However, there are 2.35 million Muslims in the US, so that means 117,500 Muslims in the United States have a favorable opinion of al Qaeda.

The mainstream media generally reports unqualified good news about the attitudes of Muslims, and unqualified bad news about Iraq. They provide context for neither, where context is badly needed. Hopefully the Pew report’s conclusion is true, and that these improvements represent a “rising tide.” But the way the media is covering the story minimizes a serious problem. We should not minimize the problem - we should be finding out what caused the reduction and working to improve on it. Hot Air provides more analysis of the latest Pew survey, taking note of the fact that “as a general but not ironclad rule, the closer a country is to Israel the more suicide-happy they are. The standout numbers are of course for the Palestinians, who continue to set the standard for savagery against which all others are measured.”

Sources:
Pew Research: Muslim Americans - Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream
Pew Research: A Rising Tide Lifts Mood in the Developing World - Sharp Decline in Support for Suicide Bombing in Muslim Countries
More on the “tiny percentage” of radical Islamists in the PH archives.

The Tiny Percentage of Radical Islamists in the U.S.

The Associated Press is spinning furiously, trying to find the best angle to take on this story.

Of approximately 2.35 million Muslims in the U.S., 5% (there’s that five percent again!) expressed a favorable opinion of al Qaeda. That’s 117,500 people, already in the U.S., agreeing with our enemies that we should be subjugated or killed.

60% do not believe that Arab men carried out the 9/11 attacks. That’s 1,410,000 people, living among us (and remember that doesn’t count the non-Muslim, leftist lunatics like Rosie O’Donnell) who believe in a conspiracy theory of some sort.

13% say that suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam are justified. That’s 305,500 residents of the United States who think it’s okay to strap on a bomb and kill people who are going about their daily business.

Let’s see, that was 19 people on 9/11, and four on 7/7. Hair raising, indeed.

Update: Hot Air has a lot more on this poll, including some very interesting analysis.

Trackposted to Read more

More Radical Islamic Math

I wrote last week:

Britain’s Muslim population is estimated at about 1.6 million. The number of 7/7 bombing supporters in the survey jumped from 5% to 13% in just one year. When I did the math, I used 5%, hence the 80,000/4,000/200. Had I counted 13% of that 1.6 million, the number would have been 208,000. Still assuming only 5% are serious when the rubber meets the road, 5% of 208,000 is 10,400. Next, assume only 5% could act effectively, and that’s 520 effective jihadis. However, there are at least 2,000 people just in the UK who have moved from wishful thinking to actively supporting al Qaeda with ties to jihad groups and training camps in Pakistan. So instead of 200, it’s actually ten times that amount. I guess that 5% of the 5% was a wee bit too optimistic.

Evidently the percentage of that 13% of Islamic UK terror supporters (208,000) who are willing to act on their beliefs is much higher. These are just the people who have made the watch lists -

From LGF:

Last week the BBC reported that Britain’s MI5 intelligence service was monitoring at least 2,000 terror suspects in the UK.

Today we learn that report was incorrect. The actual number of Islamic terrorists on MI5’s watch list is closer to 4,000.

From Weasel Zippers:

Horrifying article on the problem Britain faces from within. To make it even worse, they are reporting that Muslim terrorists are trying to infiltrate the security forces. I guess their policy of Londonistan has backfired….

Previous posts on this topic here: The “Tiny Percentage” of Radical Islamists

Trackposted to Read more

2,000 Terrorists In The UK

LGF reports “The latest word from the UK’s MI5 intelligence is that at least 2,000 British Muslims are actively supporting Al Qaeda, with direct links to jihad groups and training camps in Pakistan.”

Hey, at least they’re tracking them - it’s a start! I wrote about this very phenomenon earlier this week:

In a survey after the 7/7 bombings, a mere 5% of UK Muslims approved of the bombings. The problem is that 5% of UK Muslims is 80,000 people. And that grew to 13% the following year. If you figure that only a tiny percentage of those who approve would be willing to act, that’s still 4,000 people. If you figure that only 5% of that number could act effectively, that’s 200 people.

Now, that was an extremely conservative estimate. Britain’s Muslim population is estimated at about 1.6 million. The number of 7/7 bombing supporters in the survey jumped from 5% to 13% in just one year. When I did the math, I used 5%, hence the 80,000/4,000/200. Had I counted 13% of that 1.6 million, the number would have been 208,000. Still assuming only 5% are serious when the rubber meets the road, 5% of 208,000 is 10,400. Next, assume only 5% could act effectively, and that’s 520 effective jihadis. However, there are at least 2,000 people just in the UK who have moved from wishful thinking to actively supporting al Qaeda with ties to jihad groups and training camps in Pakistan. So instead of 200, it’s actually ten times that amount. I guess that 5% of the 5% was a wee bit too optimistic.

These are people who have lived in the West, benefited from Britain’s excessively generous welfare system, and enjoyed freedom. But that didn’t stop them from siding with the enemy. One British jihadi wised up - after he lived in Saudi Arabia and had to actually live out what he was advocating.

We’ve broken up terror cells in the United States - events which were vastly under-reported. This is a serious problem, and we need serious people to deal with it. Unfortunately, few people in either party are willing to even acknowledge it.

Trackposted to Read more

More On The Tiny Percentage of Radical Islamists

I’ve posted repeatedly on the tiny percentage of radical Islamists/terrorists and on the larger percentage of terror supporters. I finally made a category for posts related to that topic - it will contain posts with statistics and information on the effect of that tiny, growing percentage and their effect on the Muslim population at large, and their effect on the world at large. In a survey after the 7/7 bombings, a mere 5% of UK Muslims approved of the bombings. The problem is that 5% of UK Muslims is 80,000 people. And that grew to 13% the following year. If you figure that only a tiny percentage of those who approve would be willing to act, that’s still 4,000 people. If you figure that only 5% of that number could act effectively, that’s 200 people.

Given the effect that 19 people had on our country on 9/11, I’d say that’s cause for plenty of concern. But too many people simply have no idea. I referenced the 7/7 bombings once in a conversation, and the woman I was talking to had no idea what they were. I clarified, “the London bombings” and she still had no idea. My focus has been on the attitudes of Muslims living in the west. But the worldwide picture must be considered as well.

McQ at Q and A has an interesting post on that tiny percentage, and references Tony Blankley’s recent article:

What percentage of the polled Muslims is in favor of terrorism attacks on civilians (and note the question doesn’t say American civilians — which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians — as the general form of the question suggests)?

To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorism attacks on civilians — and not just American civilians. Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.

Of course, as the study points out, “Large majorities (57 percent-84 percent) in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam.” We must be grateful for such mercies. But when, to fairly extrapolate these numbers, about a quarter of a billion Muslims are in favor of civilian terrorist attacks, I think prudent people are entitled to be alarmed at the magnitude of the threat.

McQ makes a good point in his recommendation that we avoid considering Muslims as a homogeneous group, and addresses Blankley’s “critical mass” point. He also makes the point that while their concerns are generally baseless (our nation’s goal is not to spread Christianity in the middle east), we cannot afford to leave those concerns unaddressed.

Here in the US, people have to be educated - in spite of the media - on what the threat is so that they can understand the need to deal with it. This is going to be a very long war, and the sooner people can mobilize for it and recognize the enemy, the faster we can win. Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not. But the Muslim community is in a unique position - they are the group most likely to recognize and and root out the terrorists in their midst. As it falls primarily to Christians to repudiate Fred Phelps, it also falls to Muslims to defend their own faith from those that they claim are “hijacking” it. If they are truthful, if these terrorists and terror supporters, are in fact hijacking a peaceful faith, then it’s time they step up, stop making excuses, and stop claiming Islamophobia for every perceived offense. It’s time for an Islamic Neighborhood Watch. As Ace wrote,

Muslims will say, “Why should be inconvenienced or humiliated for the excesses of a few?”

And the rest of us say, “Why should we be inconvenienced or humiliated for the excesses of Muslims, when they seem to be active or passive supporters of the Muslim terrorists causing all of the problems?”

If people are not educated about the problem that this “tiny percentage” is increasing, there won’t be any substantial outcry or social pressure for American Muslims to police their own. What we have now is increasing dhimmitude and charges of Islamophobia. In the UK, sharia courts have been set up in defiance of the law, and so far no one has moved to stop it. We can’t afford to drift further down the multicultural river; we have to start rowing back upstream and defend our liberties while we still can - before the tiny percentage grows into a substantial minority.

A British Jihadi Saw The Light; Pity That The Democrats Can’t

h/t to LGF for this Times Online extract from an upcoming book called The Islamist by Ed Hussain. This book looks like it’s going to be very interesting. Ed Hussain grew up in the west, but still promoted radical Islam… at least until he lived in Saudi Arabia and learned what it is like in practice, not as preached in western countries where you can do as you like after you leave the mosque. He wrote:

I had never expected to see such naked poverty in Saudi Arabia.

At that moment it dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free and were given government housing.

Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia. At that moment I longed to be home again.

All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal.

…Racism was an integral part of Saudi society. My students often used the word “nigger” to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world’s most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.

…In my class the following Sunday [after the 7/7 bombings], the beginning of the Saudi working week, were nearly 60 Saudis. Only one mentioned the London bombings.

“Was your family harmed?” he asked.

“My sister missed an explosion by four minutes but otherwise they’re all fine, thank you.”

The student, before a full class, sighed and said: “There are no benefits in terrorism. Why do people kill innocents?”

Two others quickly gave him his answer in Arabic: “There are benefits. They will feel how we feel.”

I was livid. “Excuse me?” I said. “Who will know how it feels?”

“We don’t mean you, teacher,” said one. “We are talking about people in England. You are here. They need to know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel.”

“The British people have been bombed by the IRA for years,” I retorted. “Londoners were bombed by Hitler during the blitz. The largest demonstrations against the war in Iraq were in London. People in Britain don’t need to be taught what it feels like to be bombed.”

Several students nodded in agreement. The argumentative ones became quiet. Were they convinced by what I had said? It was difficult to tell.

Two weeks after the terrorist attacks in London another Saudi student raised his hand and asked: “Teacher, how can I go to London?”

“Much depends on your reason for going to Britain. Do you want to study or just be a tourist?”

“Teacher, I want to go London next month. I want bomb, big bomb in London, again. I want make jihad!”

“What?” I exclaimed. Another student raised both hands and shouted: “Me too! Me too!”

Other students applauded those who had just articulated what many of them were thinking. I was incandescent. In protest I walked out of the classroom to a chorus of jeering and catcalls.

My time in Saudi Arabia bolstered my conviction that an austere form of Islam (Wahhabism) married to a politicised Islam (Islamism) is wreaking havoc in the world. This anger-ridden ideology, an ideology I once advocated, is not only a threat to Islam and Muslims, but to the entire civilised world.

He describes a threat we must take seriously. To those who say that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone, I would remind them that, as Joe Lieberman pointed out, the facts do not support that theory. Where we have left Iraqi cities undefended, terrorists have taken control and wreaked havoc, enforcing Shariah on an unwilling populace. London hosted the largest anti-war rallies, as Hussain pointed out. It provides a comprehensive welfare system that supports many of the Imams who preach radicalism in London mosques, yet was rewarded with a terrorist attack.

I’ve written before about how the “tiny percentage” is a substantial threat:
June 19, 2006: “The problem is that even though only a small percentage of people who declare themselves Muslim actively want to fight us because they say their faith compels it, the numbers involved are huge. For example, after the London bombings last summer, a survey of UK Muslims was taken. Only 5% thought that more attacks were justified. This sounds like great news until you do the math. Unfortunately 5% of Muslims in the UK means 80,000 people thought more attacks were justified. If only 5% of the 5% were actually willing to act on that feeling of justification, that’s still 4,000 jihadis in the UK alone. Considering how few managed to successfully attacks us on 9/11, I’d say that’s cause for concern.”

July 16, 2006: “A July 4, 2006 Times Online article revealed that “13% of British Muslims think that the four men who carried out the London Tube and bus bombings of July 7, 2005, should be regarded as “martyrs”.” Believing that more attacks are justified, and believing that those who carry out attacks are martyrs are roughly equivalent. (If you are a martyr, it follows that your cause was just; otherwise you are referred to as a terrorist or a criminal.) From 5% to 13% in a year. 13% of 1.6 million Muslims is 208,000. Again, holding to the idea that only a tiny minority of 5% would act on those beliefs, 5% of 208,000 is 10,400.”

February 19, 2007: “Now we have this article at Jihad Watch [emphasis added]:

Again, guesstimating that of the 12% who approve, only 5% might be willing to actually act on it, that gives you 4,200 Muslim Canadian jihadists.

What if we figure that only a tiny percentage of those willing to act could actually be effective? Of those estimated who are willing to act, let’s guess that 5% are smart enough, have the connections and the ability to come up with an effective plan and carry it out.

That would mean in England, there are 520 effective jihadis. In Canada, 210.

Nineteen people took down the World Trade Centers.”

Raymond Ibrahim also did some math on this topic and writes:

Thus, even if we were to agree with Ramadan that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” and that, say, only a mere 20 percent of Muslims are “literalists,” that simply means that some 200 million Muslims in the world today are dedicated enemies of the infidel West. At any rate, when it comes to instilling terror, numbers are of no significance. It took only 19 to wreak great havoc and destruction on American soil on 9/11. It won’t take much more to duplicate that horrific day. This is precisely why, to use Ramadan’s own words, “we are obsessed by the few [radical Muslims] and not seeing the many [moderate Muslims].” That most Muslims are good, law-abiding citizens and that only a mere minority of the umma, say, 200 million, are hell-bent on destroying the West — how is that supposed to be any comfort to us?

It is in this environment that top Democratic Presidential contenders bobbed and weaved when asked the following very clear question:

“If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists,” Williams said, “and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”

If we learned beyond a shadow of a doubt… yet Obama and Edwards still answered the question by questioning the intelligence in this theoretical situation. It reminds me of Reid simply refusing to believe General Petraeus. Edwards went even further, promising investigations of our security apparatus to find out how the attacks were successful. (Hmmm… what does Edwards think about the Patriot Act, so called domestic warrantless wiretapping, and the financial tracking program exposed by the NY Times?) Hillary says “if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.” IF… and respond to whom? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Bill Richardson said he’d respond aggressively, while getting international support (heh - good luck with that!), improve intelligence (goody, more investigations, or does he mean we can go back to using the programs Democrats have been griping about for years?) and he’d respond with surgical strikes. How would he know where to strike surgically? Biden, at least, had a somewhat realistic response:

Still later, Sen. Joseph Biden dispensed with the limits of a “surgical” response and gave the Democrats’ only full-scale endorsement of military force. “Let’s stop all this happy talk here [that] the use of force doesn’t make sense,” Biden said. “The use of force in Afghanistan is justified and necessary; in Darfur, justified and necessary; in the Balkans, justified and necessary. You guys can have your happy talk, there’s real life.”

He’s deliberately overlooking an important point. If force is justified in the Balkans and Darfur, it is even more justified and necessary in Iraq. That’s real life. None of them except Biden can even formulate a response to hypothetical terror attacks that doesn’t involve navel-gazing investigations, and he seems unaware of the strategic necessity of our presence in Iraq or the real nature of terrorism.

One jihadi saw the light, not from enjoying the freedoms of the west, but from suffering the restrictions of what he advocated. Perhaps we ought to be encouraging the Democrats to take even more, and longer, trips over to terror-sponsoring countries. At this point, I don’t see how it could hurt.

Next Page »