NYT: Muslims are 25 times more likely to commit terrorist attacks

The New York Times has been in a full court press to show that terrorism has nothing to do with Muslims.  They have presented sympathetic articles about parents  who claimed to be wholly ignorant of their sons' intentions.  They showed articles of Muslims worried about backlash after one of their own goes out and kills a bunch of Americans.  They have even started a new propaganda campaign to say that motives don't matter; we just have to get rid of guns!

But one of their efforts backfired when they produced a graph showing who are the perpetrators of terrorist violence in America.  The graph shows that, depending on the year, Islamic terrorists account for "only" 40%-60% of the fatalities in terrorist attack.  Look, they are saying, half of the terrorist attacks have nothing to do with radical Islam!

But there's just one problem: Muslims make up only about 2% of the population of America.  If they are killing half the victims of terrorism, that means that a Muslim perpetrator is 25 times more likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack than a non-Muslim.  Unintentionally, the Times makes the case that Muslims are much, much more likely to carry out terrorist attacks than non-Muslims, though I'm sure it was not their intent.

Furthermore, the handy chart doesn't look at the religion of those who commits massacres in the Middle East.  That would be about 99% Muslim.  If a Muslim "refugee" wants to enter the U.S., statistically he or she is at least 25 times more likely to be a terrorist than if he is a non-Muslim.  Statistically speaking, that means we are taking great risks admitting Muslims like the parents of Syed Rizwan Farook or his bride, Tashfeen Malik.

How do we "vet" the children of immigrants who haven't even been born yet?  The answer is, we can't, so we shouldn't allow any further Muslim immigration while we are at war with an unidentifiable and nontrivial subset of their population.

Editor's note: The calculations in the blog rely on the generous estimate that Muslims in America number over 6 million, a figure that is highly inlfated. If we took the more realistic number of 3 million, the ratio would by 50 times, not 25 times as likely. (Hat tip: Richard Baehr)

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

The New York Times has been in a full court press to show that terrorism has nothing to do with Muslims.  They have presented sympathetic articles about parents  who claimed to be wholly ignorant of their sons' intentions.  They showed articles of Muslims worried about backlash after one of their own goes out and kills a bunch of Americans.  They have even started a new propaganda campaign to say that motives don't matter; we just have to get rid of guns!

But one of their efforts backfired when they produced a graph showing who are the perpetrators of terrorist violence in America.  The graph shows that, depending on the year, Islamic terrorists account for "only" 40%-60% of the fatalities in terrorist attack.  Look, they are saying, half of the terrorist attacks have nothing to do with radical Islam!

But there's just one problem: Muslims make up only about 2% of the population of America.  If they are killing half the victims of terrorism, that means that a Muslim perpetrator is 25 times more likely to kill someone in a terrorist attack than a non-Muslim.  Unintentionally, the Times makes the case that Muslims are much, much more likely to carry out terrorist attacks than non-Muslims, though I'm sure it was not their intent.

Furthermore, the handy chart doesn't look at the religion of those who commits massacres in the Middle East.  That would be about 99% Muslim.  If a Muslim "refugee" wants to enter the U.S., statistically he or she is at least 25 times more likely to be a terrorist than if he is a non-Muslim.  Statistically speaking, that means we are taking great risks admitting Muslims like the parents of Syed Rizwan Farook or his bride, Tashfeen Malik.

How do we "vet" the children of immigrants who haven't even been born yet?  The answer is, we can't, so we shouldn't allow any further Muslim immigration while we are at war with an unidentifiable and nontrivial subset of their population.

Editor's note: The calculations in the blog rely on the generous estimate that Muslims in America number over 6 million, a figure that is highly inlfated. If we took the more realistic number of 3 million, the ratio would by 50 times, not 25 times as likely. (Hat tip: Richard Baehr)

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.