The Truth About Terrorism

The following essay by Nick McAvelly was originally posted at Patriot’s Corner in a slightly different form.

The Truth About Terrorism

by Nick McAvelly

In the years since 9/11, there have been multiple terrorist attacks. Not only has the terrorist problem not been solved, it has become difficult to even talk about it properly. This has played a major part in making the world a more sinister and dangerous place. The increased level of terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11, particularly in our own countries, have shown anyone who has eyes to see that the terrorists are in fact our secondary enemy. The primary foe — the real enemy — lies within.

The only legitimate reason for the existence of the state is to safeguard the negative freedom of citizens. Our governments have failed to do this, so we must take whatever steps we can to address the situation ourselves. The first thing each of us must do is clear our own minds of the memes that are currently being used to deceive us, so we can begin to understand the truth about the reality we live in. That alone is a victory. However, we must look beyond our own minds and consider the wider world. Each of us can start to counteract the anti-intellectual poison of so-called “political correctness” by openly refuting the false claims of the enemy, and doing what we can to establish a more rational, safer world.

Clearly, not all Muslims are terrorists. Where the subject term is Muslims, and the predicate term is men who have committed acts of violence and terrorism, the A proposition (All S are P) is false.

The A proposition — FALSE

That A proposition (All S are P) may be false, but it does not follow that the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is false. And where the subject term is Muslims, that term is not distributed, and the predicate term is men who have committed acts of violence and terrorism, the I proposition (Some S are P) is true.

The I proposition — TRUE

On 22nd May 2013, two murderous creatures attacked Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old drummer serving with the Second Fusiliers in the British Army. Rigby had served in Cyprus and Afghanistan, where he was part of the Fire Support Group at Patrol Base Woqab.[1] The pair took Rigby’s life in brutal fashion, right in the middle of London’s streets.[2]

One of the killers, who had converted to Islam and taken the name Mujahid Abu Hamza,[3] was caught red-handed by a passer-by who filmed him on their mobile phone at the scene of the crime. Holding a dagger and a meat cleaver, Abu Hamza stated that he was following commands found in the Koran, specifically citing surah-at-taubah, the ninth chapter of Islam’s foundational text.[4]

‘But we are forced by the Koran, in sura at-taubah, through many, many ayah throughout the Koran …’

The “jihadi terrorists” who have just carried out the latest terrorist attack in London were reportedly screaming out their motivation to the world as they wielded their blades: they committed this act of terrorism in the name of the false deity of Islam.[5] There are two possibilities here. These murderers were just having a bit of a lark on a Saturday night after drinking a few beers, and they made all that “Allah” stuff up. Or they were devout Muslims who meant what they said. Which is it?

We need to ignore the lies that are peddled by agents of the state, and acknowledge that some Muslims are terrorists. Say it again, to yourself: Some Muslims are terrorists. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone’s “race”. A terrorist is driven by the same thing that drives everyone else: their beliefs.

This understanding of human nature is as old as the hills. Here is a quote from the Dhammapada, a collection of the sayings of the Buddha, who was born approximately two and a half thousand years ago:

Mind is the forerunner of all actions.
All deeds are led by mind, created by mind.
If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind,
Suffering follows, as wheels follow the hoof of an ox.[6]

The Dhammapada predates the invention of Islam by hundreds of years, therefore the understanding of human nature recorded in this religious literature cannot be attributed to “Islamophobia” (whatever that word even means).

The truth of the matter is that human beings are ambulatory hardware. We are directed to act as we do by our beliefs. As lines of code in our minds execute, our bones and blood respond in this three-dimensional reality. So the claim that discussing the motivation of “jihadi terrorists” is somehow about “race”, that is to say, human hardware, could not be more wrong. It’s all about software.

If you do not believe that the foundational claims of Islam are true, then the truth claims made by Islam are not part of your mind’s operating system, so any “jihadi terrorist” apps are incompatible with your consciousness. On the other hand, the fundamental truth claims of Islam are embedded within the operating system of anyone who self-identifies as a Muslim, and apps that drive people to murder in the name of “Allah” will only run on an Islamic operating system. It follows that being a Muslim is a necessary condition of becoming a “jihadi terrorist”.

The time has long passed for all this to be discussed openly and honestly in our countries. Whatever it is our politicians have been doing to protect us since September 2001, it has been a failure: people are dying every week on our streets! We need to realise that the political class are not only failing in their duty to protect us as citizens, they have been using the power of the state to prevent anyone else from addressing this problem. Finally, in June 2017, let us all say: Enough is enough!

The UN Special Rapporteur has stated:

The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed under article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirm that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Special Rapporteur has consistently underlined the importance of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, not only as a right that should be guaranteed to all, including individuals belonging to marginalized groups, but also as a means to claim and enjoy all other rights. Indeed, it is a fundamental right that safeguards the exercise of all other rights and is a critical foundation of democracy, which depends on the free flow of diverse sources of information and ideas. […]

As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasized, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realized, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices — even in a harsh manner — must also be allowed.[7]

Let us admit to ourselves that the politicians who we have elected to protect us from harm are not only traitors and incompetents, they are our true enemy. This is our country — not theirs. We must openly reject their pointless, fallacious, mealy-mouthed soundbites, and we must hold them accountable for their failures. It has fallen to us to start talking about the real problem that has been imported into our country — Islamic software. If anyone experiences a transient emotion (a.k.a. feels “offended”) when they hear some things about Islam they never knew before, then that is utterly irrelevant. We have just witnessed two of the most horrific terrorist attacks imaginable. Let this be the time when we, the people, start to take our country back!


1.   Ministry of Defence, Drummer Lee Rigby killed in Woolwich incident,, 30th May 2013.
2.   Mike Sullivan, Jonathan Reilly, Tom Wells and Tom Morgan, We killed this British soldier. It’s an eye for an eye, The Sun, 22nd May 2013 (updated 5th April 2016);
3.   Sarah Weng, Drummer Lee Rigby, 25: Victim in Woolwich attack was loving father of two-year-old, Christian Today, 23d May 2013.
4.   Harry Haydon and Karen Morrison, Woolwich terror suspect revealed as Muslim convert known to MI5, The Sun, 23d May 2013 (updated 5th April 2016);
5.   Adrian Shaw, Woolwich attack: Murder suspect Michael Adebolajo asks to be known as Mujahid Abu Hamza in bizarre court appearance, Mirror, 3d June 2013 (updated 4th June 2013);
6.   Arthur Martin and Martin Robinson, Posing like Usain Bolt and blowing kisses to his brother, Woolwich suspect now known as ‘Abu Hamza’, Daily Mail, 4th June, 2013.
7.   Aftermath Video of the Woolwich Butchers — FULL, YouTube, published 23d May 2013.
8.   Robert Spencer, Full video and transcript of UK jihad murderer: “We are forced by the Qur’an”, May 23d, 2013.
9.   Robert Mendick, ‘They shouted ‘this is for Allah’, as they stabbed indiscriminately’ — How the London terror attack unfolded, Telegraph, 4th June 2017.
10.   Katinka Hesselink, Our experienced reality — aka Buddhism and The Secret 4th May 2012 [accessed 25th May 2017].
11.   Frank La Rue, UN General Assembly, 67th Session, A/67/357, 7th September 2012.

23 thoughts on “The Truth About Terrorism

  1. from Jay Smith Ph.D.
    Barely 18 hours after the attack at London Bridge last Saturday night, Hatun Tash and I had to once again talk about the violence being perpetrated in our streets in London by Muslims.

    Yet, what we said on the ladder at Speaker’s Corner could not be said outside of Speaker’s Corner, because no one is publicly permitted to call these killers Muslims, nor their belief system Islam.

    As we’ve so often done before, we decided to go to the verses in the Qur’an which supported the three Muslim men who perpetrated the killings at London Bridge, and at the nearby Borrough Market, situated just a few miles from where we were speaking.

    We read from Surah 8:60, which tells Muslims to use any “steeds of war” (i.e. horses and camels then, or trucks and cars today), to “cause terror in the hearts of your enemy” (i.e. terrorism).

    We then went to Surah 47:1-6 to show that Muslims were to behead non-believers, and if they should die themselves, they would go straight to paradise.

    To understand what motivates Muslims to do the violence we are witnessing, one need go no further than the Qur’an itself.

    And there you go.

    • “It is believed the terrorists used [a] flat in Barking Road, East Ham as a “safe house” where they planned the details of the outrage.

      When the property was raided by counter-terror officers, they discovered a large amount of materials that had been used in the preparation of the attack, including water bottles and cloths for the Molotov cocktails, craft knives and a copy of the Koran open at a page on martyrdom.”

      Source: Daily Telegraph, 10th June 2017.

    • That is a good article; thanks for that link. I’m pleased that you’ve found one or two counter-arguments in the above article that you may want to use – we really do need to get to grips with some of the “memes” that agents of the State currently use to entrap us. As the author of the article you linked to says, our enemies are not “liberal” at all – they’re radicals who have hijacked the word, and the philosophy, to disguise their true destructive intentions.

      I think the Buddhism counter-argument is a straightforward one that could be employed to counter the inevitable cries of “racism” whenever one attempts to discuss the Islamic belief system.

      We can’t just say to ourselves, all that “racism” stuff is silly and irrelevant, then simply ignore it, because no matter how ineffective it is to anyone with a rational mind, the enemy keeps on using it as a weapon. So we need to try to persuade some of the brainwashed masses to think about this differently.

      Obviously, “race” (whatever that word even means) has nothing to do with it. That is not what we are trying to talk about, when we are discussing “jihadi terrorists” (as some members of the press are now calling them) and their true motivations!

      Mind is the forerunner of all actions, all deeds are led by mind, created by mind … this is a handy quote, and it’s easy to remember. It makes the point that human beings are driven by their beliefs.

      This understanding of human nature, recorded in Buddhist literature, predates the invention of Islam by hundreds of years, therefore the expression of that understanding of human nature – even today – cannot possibly be attributed to “Islamophobia”.

      I think that counter-argument may be worth using if one is talking to a brainwashed person about the Islamic belief system, because a) they probably won’t have heard it before, b) they won’t know how to deal with it and c) it might – just might – make them re-write a few lines of code inside their own minds.

      It’s about time we developed some “counter-memes” of our own and introduced them into the narrative …

      • Unfortunately this is not quite so clear in the context of the country I am from. It was the Nazis and their immediate ideological predecessors in the 19th century who so incessantly conflated the terms ‘race’ and ‘culture’ that the distinction vanished in public consciousness. Every culture with perceivably distinct traits was labelled a race. Obviously people never quite got rid of that after the worst was over. I sometimes use this argument to tell someone who wants to clobber an argument by screaming racism, that they are using the very methods of those they pretend to fight. It doesn’t register, though. Left is left, birds of a feather — the Nazis were left, not right, and even stated so themselves. Their ghastly excesses were regretted, but the spirit of intolerant collectivism remains deep inside.

        • Indeed. It’s fascinating to see how in the minds of so many people, everything apparently boils down to “race” (whatever they actually mean by that.)

          I am taking the position that we may say to ourselves that this is all irrelevant and a bit silly, but the fact remains that, as you say, there are a lot of people who think that way. So we simply have to get our thinking caps on and come up with some counter-arguments.

          I was once having a discussion with someone at work who was regurgitating the same old memes – and I cut them short by saying, “It’s not about hardware. It’s all about software.” (I tapped my head as I said it to reinforce the point.)

          This worked! The other person stopped talking immediately and you could almost see the wheels turning inside their head – after a delay of a few seconds, they started up again, and what did they say? “You’re right. I never thought of it like that before.”

          So I have seen these new counter-memes take hold in another person’s mind. There are, I would think, a lot of people out there who are simply beyond reach. But it is possible to introduce some new counter-memes into a conversation – with some people.

          We have to try, anyway. That is our mission, should we choose to accept it.

        • If one argues that the root cause of people’s behaviour can be found in what they believe (applying this general principle to “jihadi terrorists”) and a multiculturalist responds by saying, “That’s Islamophobia!”, then perhaps this could be countered by asking them: “So you are saying that all Buddhists are Islamophobic? That all the Buddhists who ever lived were Islamophobic, even those Buddhists who died before Islam was even invented? You are saying that the Buddha himself was Islamophobic?”

          It is difficult to see how a devout multiculturalist could defend that position.

          But it would be amusing to see them try …

  2. the leftists always use the argument that not all muslims are terrorists to enable them to continue to colonize your countries. how many of them have to be terrorists for it to cost your life? the answer is one.
    you will never rid your country of muslim terrorism until you rid your country of your leftist politicians and their plan to take over your country through colonization. but then that might affect your dole, so it might be better to give up your life.

    • “the leftists always use the argument that not all muslims are terrorists to enable them to continue to colonize your countries.”

      Yes indeed – but if one looks at that assertion logically, all it means is that, where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is terrorists, the A proposition (All S are P) is false.

      If you are up to speed with a little logic, one can expose this assertion, which as you correctly say, is a fundamental part of the enemy’s weaponry – as an irrelevant statement.

      Check out the square of opposition – an A proposition may be false, but it does not follow that the corresponding I proposition is also false!

      Where the subject term is cats and the predicate term is marmalade coloured cats, the A proposition (All S are P) is clearly false. It does not follow that the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is also false. Obviously, some cats are marmalade coloured …

      So what I’ve tried to do is anticipate this line of thinking from the enemy – oh but not all Muslims are “jihadi terrorists” … (and you’re so bad for saying otherwise …)

      By saying right off the bat that where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is “jihadi terrorists” we are not saying that “All S are P” (aka the A proposition.

      We are saying that “Some S are P” (aka the I proposition).

      So two things: 1) the assertion that the A proposition is false is neither here nor there. Let’s all agree to that and dismiss the assertion as completely and utterly irrelevant. And 2) if one of the enemy’s agents tries to say that we are saying “All S are P” then they are creating an obvious straw man. This is fallacious and intellectually dishonest! And we should point that out to them, in no uncertain terms!

      Where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is “jihadi terrorists” we are only asserting that Some S are P!

      So, as you say: “the leftists always use the argument that not all muslims are terrorists” … but there are counter-arguments that we can use against this!

      • I like your thinking about counter arguments and re-framing. We need to begin to shift the commonly help narratives, based on PC (which dominate our lives), into truth based real knowledge. The problem is that, no matter how brilliant the counter argument, or re-frame is, the committed leftist is not going to change their belief because the leftist belief system is nearly as feverent of a belief system as islam is. Leftists are indoctrinated and committed. It is tied into their self worth because the indoctrination gets them to ‘feel’ that this is the only way they can overcome their inherent guilt.
        Connecting the dots as a counter argument could work. For example (using your example): ‘Yes, it’s true that all muslims are not terrorists, however, most terrorists are muslims and all jihadies are muslims, and all jihadies are inspired by the teachings of islam. On top of this, all jihadies (who are muslims), are doing this in the name of islam and what the koran & muhammad teaches.
        Just some ideas. Keep up the good work!

        • “I like your thinking about counter arguments and re-framing. We need to begin to shift the commonly help narratives, based on PC (which dominate our lives), into truth based real knowledge.”

          I couldn’t agree more. There may have been a time when we could have just waited until the sensible people in our societies got their act together and dealt with the actual problem.

          But those days are gone, and if our government is not going to live up to its solemn duty to protect us, then we are going to have to act ourselves.

          And as you rightly say, one of the things we really need to do is “re-frame” the important issues of the day, so that the inevitable knee-jerk responses by the “leftists” among us lose traction – and people start to think about these issues differently.

          • If you think about it, bring indoctrinated is kind of like a shock state. The biggest step to getting out of that state is to be stunned out of it. Stunned by a re-frame that gets them first out of their state after which they can begin to consider something counter to that. Convincing them comes after that. Convincing cannot come first with the indoctrinated.

          • ‘But those days are gone, and if our government is not going to live up to its solemn duty to protect us, then we are going to have to act ourselves’.

            I would say that the governments (in the west at least) along with the media and Universities, are in service, not of the people, but of a collection of powerful people who have their own agenda, part of which is to destroy western civilization and it’s nation states (along with it’s identity).
            They must lose if we are to survive. All ‘victim’ groups are being created by them and utilized (as their shock troops) by them for their goals. Indoctrination is their vehicle. Power is their lust. We have to get the truth out there en mass in an effective way to combat ‘them’.

        • What I’ve tried to come up with is a series of “talking points” that go against the enemy’s position then. That is to say, the enemy keeps firing the same fiery darts at us, so I’ve tried to develop an Iron Dome system to take them out in mid-air.

          1. Start every debate by saying: Where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is jihadi terrorists, everyone agrees that the A proposition (All S are P) is false. But the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is true.

          This would shoot down one of the enemy’s fiery darts – “Oh, but not all Muslims are terrorists!”

          2. People are driven by their beliefs. As the Dhammapada says, “All deeds are led by mind, created by mind. This understanding of human nature predates the creation of Islam by hundreds of years. So it is not “Islamophobic” to understand that “jihadi terrorists” are motivated by their beliefs.

          This would take out another of the enemy’s fiery darts – it is “racist” to discuss the motivation of “jihadi terrorists”.

          3. The problem we are all facing has nothing to do with human “hardware”. (That is to say, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “race”.) It has everything to do with human “software” – what people believe!

          Human beings are motivated to act as they do by their beliefs – this applies to jihadi terrorists as well. And the jihadi terrorist app that was running in their mind can only run on an Islamic operating system.

          So being a Muslim & having an Islamic “operating system” running in your mind is not a sufficient condition of going on to become a jihadi terrorist.But being a Muslim is a necessary condition of going on to become a jihadi terrorist.

          This would shoot down the “racism” fiery dart as well, and turn the debate around to the real issue – the true motivation of jihadists, which as we all know, is their belief system.

          So there you have it – I’ve tried to come up with a few useful counter-memes – things are getting steadily worse, so we need to do what we can to try & change things, & make our society a more rational and safer place to live.

    • I think the Baron has inserted an old photo into the article, instead of the other one (of the recent London attack, where the “jihadi terrorists” are quoted.) I’m sure he’ll fix it when he has a moment.

      There are (as we all know) multiple examples of devout Muslims telling the world what their motives are, as they carry out violent and often murderous acts. Here is another example of this:

      Some of us may remember that, on June 1st 2009, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Memphis-born convert to Islam, drove past an Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas and opened fire on two American soldiers with a semi-automatic rifle. Muhammad killed Private William Long and seriously injured Private Quinton Ezeagwula, two young men who had completed their basic training just two weeks earlier.

      Muhammad has several firearms in his truck when he was arrested, so he had the means to carry out the attack, and he clearly had the opportunity to carry out an attack on a soft target. That left Muhammad’s motives. Muhammad was jailed for life without parole in July 2011. Before Muhammad was sent down, he wrote to the judge and explained what his motives were. In that handwritten note, Muhammad stated clearly that “this was a jihad attack on infidel forces” therefore his actions were “justified according to Islamic laws and the Islamic religion.”

      Max Brantley, Cops: double shooting terror act, Arkansas Times, June 1st, 2009;
      Sean Osborne, Islamic terrorism and insurrection are very much alive and well in America, Canada Free Press, June 3d, 2009;
      Joseph Abrams, Little Rock Shooting Suspect Joins Growing List of Muslim Converts Accused of Targeting U.S., Fox News, June 2nd, 2009;
      Note written by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad in his own hand, in which he explains his motives, available at: James Dao, A Muslim Son, a Murder Trial and Many Questions, New York Times, February 16th, 2010.

      • Yes, you’re right — somehow I used an old tag for a screen shot of a different Mail front page. I’ve fixed it.

  3. Nick McAvelly’ points about the state and terrorism are excellent. However, using the UN Special Rapporteur’s statements about the right to freedom of opinion, carry little weight with me since I have a particular problem, as I do with the UN and all its deceptive sub-organizations that pretend it exists to help humanity. Also, the meaning of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘opinion’ are constantly changing. I believe the EU Constitution’s phrase “freedom of expression” doesn’t mean at all what Europeans think it means. As for Americans, according to George Bush, some time ago, when he addressed the UN he reminded any American who bothered to listen who will eventually be the big boys who run the show, that “it is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” That to me is a red flag – free range slavery here we come.

    • Yes, but look at it this way: If they are saying it’s okay to discuss religious beliefs in a harsh manner, etc … how can a member of the bewildered, brainwashed herd go against that?

      The point being it’s not necessarily whether you or I rate the UN as an organisation, it’s what the person you are talking to thinks that matters. If you see what I mean …

      Plus it is a useful framework to make the point that it is all right to discuss religious beliefs – a useful source of nice points that we might wish to make: it’s all right to discuss religious beliefs, as harshly as you like;
      human beings are protected by law, but religious beliefs are not (that’s a good one), we have the right to try to convert other people, and that includes practitioners of the RoP, etc etc … all good stuff.

      So before you write the work of the different Special Rapporteurs off, have a look through their reports and see some of the things they have said. The key being (regardless of your own opinion of the UN as an organisation): Can we use this?

  4. There is a frustrating group of conservatives out there who should be allies, except for the fact they INSIST every attack is a state-sponsored false flag, or orchestrated by Israel.

    A variant on this frustrating element are those who insist all terror attacks would cease if we pulled out of the Middle East.

    I see these groups as useful idiots for the Ummah who provide more cover, and will eventually need to be dealt with.

  5. Being a very simple person, I tend to see this simply.
    “Clearly, not all muslims are terrorists”. Ah, but they can be potential terrorists at the drop of a hat–just by visiting a mosque and listening to some pyjama-clad, excrement-stirring imam.

  6. Just like not all Nazis were in the SS or prison guards in a KZ.
    Actually most Nazis were just average citizens.
    But what will you learn from this about the nature of Nazism?
    Not much…
    Or is the ideology of Nazism any better because of this fact?
    Surely not…

    Same goes for Muslims and Islam.
    Or Communists and Communism.

    • Quite so. The enemy’s assertion that the universal affirmative proposition “All Muslims are jihadi terrorists” is false is quite irrelevant.

      Where the subject term is “Muslims” and the predicate term is “jihadi terrorists” (to use the media’s term), the particular affirmative proposition (Some S are P) is true.

      Just five minutes ago on British TV, a newscaster informed the British public that in the flat the London “jihadi terrorists” had rented, they found a copy of the Koran which was deliberately left open at a page talking about martyrdom.

      This is all about what people believe – it has nothing whatsoever to do with “race”. That is to say, it has nothing to do with human “hardware”, bones and blood, etc. It’s all about the software.

      And a “jihadi terrorist” app can only run on an Islamic operating system. It wouldn’t run on my mind’s “operating system” for example, because I couldn’t give two hoots about some illiterate desert dweller who had a medical event in a cave in the 7th century, and hallucinated a “vision” of an “angel” not unlike the one described hundreds of years later by Joseph Smith. So the basic code inside one’s mind that needs to be there for a “jihadi terrorist” app to run is not present in a non-Muslim’s mind.

      It follows that being a Muslim is not a sufficient condition for one to go on and become a “jihadi terrorist” – but it is a necessary condition of becoming a “jihadi terrorist”.

Comments are closed.