Yes, really.

Via Daily Beast’s Dean Obeidallah:

“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many times have you heard that one? Sure, we heard Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade say it, but to me, that was simply part of the Fox News plan to make their viewers dumber, as we saw again this past weekend when its terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson was caught fabricating the story that Birmingham, England, is closed to non-Muslims. But more alarmingly, even some reasonable people have uttered this statement.

And that comment is often followed up by the question: Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

Obviously, there are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. We Muslims can make the case that their actions are not based on any part of the faith but on their own political agenda. But they are Muslims, no denying that.

However, and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath: Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims. Let’s give that a moment to sink in.

Now, it’s not your fault if you aren’t aware of that fact. You can blame the media. (Yes, Sarah Palin and I actually agree on one thing: The mainstream media sucks.) […]

Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.

Shocking nobody, Obeidallah’s claim is total BS:

So what’s the source for Obeidallah’s “Latino-related” claim? He relies on an annual FBI report called “Terrorism in the United States.” In 2010, a rather devious poster on a site called “Loonwatch” (dedicated to attacking anyone who considers Islamism a threat) got a really neat idea. There was an FBI summary of the “Terrorism in the United States” reports covering 1980 through 2005. The summary included data from Puerto Rico. In the 1980s, violence from Puerto Rican separatist groups was at an epidemic level. This violence was primarily in Puerto Rico, but sometimes in the U.S. proper as well. Eventually, the separatist violence slowed to a crawl and abated.

However, there were so many Puerto Rican separatist incidents in the early and mid-80s that if you tally everything from 1980 to 2005, the curve gets thrown off.

HT: Kenneth