Muslims Shake Stereotype in Latest Poll

Comments are welcome, troll turds will be swept away.

" The continued fearmongering (Terrorist Muslims are going to take over the world and mass convert you all!) "

While the Koran may proclaim that they should do such, and I admit there are some out there that are very fanatical, and would gladly blow us up, etc......I feel most muslims, the moderate ones, and even some hard core ones...just want to live life.

They just want to live, that's all. I mean, it's the same with the Muslim friends I have. They came to the United States so they could live, and prosper. Not to get all "jihad" on people.

"using 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings as springboards to protect and advance popular political bullshit propaganda"

Yeah, using any horrific event for personal gain is just....blegh, in my book.

"Voted for the same President twice because they were a part of the ABD (Anyone But a Democrat - no matter how bad the candidate is!) crowd "

I know many people like that....sadly.

Personally I've never had a problem with any Muslims, and I live in the East End of London, which has the highest concentration of Muslims in the UK. None of them have ever tried to convert me (or kill me for that matter, touch wood). Curiously the only people that have tried to "convert" me are my baptist Christian friends, who for some reason ignore my Anglican baptism. well at least they don't try to kill me either

Just on the UK survey and speech, they aren't actually contradictory, since the 100,000 people that apparently supported the bombings also fits into the 1% support figure.

...Anglican baptism. - Darth Silliness

I'm Episcopalian, we aren't far removed.

Thanks for your thoughts, guys, it's good to know not everyone has gone off the deep end regarding this topic.

While the Koran may proclaim that they should do such, and I admit there are some out there that are very fanatical, and would gladly blow us up, etc......I feel most muslims, the moderate ones, and even some hard core ones...just want to live life. - SilentPoet

It is the extreme clerics (mullahs) who 'interpret' (most incorrectly) the Koran and instruct their followers who are to blame for giving (particularly Sunni) Muslims a bad reputation. Sunnis will tell you that Shia Muslims aren't actually Muslims because they have perverted a passage in the Koran to justify some Jihad. Only when the religion is seen as under attack (i.e. troops coming down the hill toward a Muslim community) are Muslims supposed to defend the religion with force. They are never to use it in a preemptive manner. And yes, every Muslim I know has been peaceful and has simply tried to get by within the 'Land of opportunity'.

I can see how some Muslims may feel it is justified to attack current occupying forces - partly due to the bombings, Depleted Uranium and the high civilian casualties, but there must be a better way for them to deal with 'occupiers'.

One of the 'Khans'(and yes, every time he gets agitated about something I whip out the old Star Trek 'Wrath of Kahn' joke)mentioned that Muslim / Arab culture wants very badly to be left alone; they don't want any part of our culture, because it is seen as too liberal and lasvicious. They don't want to be 'corrupted', and they have little interest in becoming a part of the global economy and playing well with others. They just want to be left alone. Yet, some of us continually wish to go 'Crusade' on their butts and it only ever ends with more wasted troops and money.

Muslims tell pollsters that they support terrorism, then polls aren't reliable. Muslims tell pollsters that they DON'T support terrorism, then polls smash stereotypes. Come on. I could waste time reiterating the things you'd say if the poll went the other way, but then you already know the pitch, right?

"Come on. I could waste time reiterating the things you'd say if the poll went the other way..." - BakerStreet

That's untrue.

Comparing multiple polls provides a broader context. That's good. I invite any pertinent polls you would have to offer.

I don't think polls were the issue, they were only given as factual sources to aide readers in gaining that broader view and understanding my comprehension and interpretation of some of what is to be read when one is attempting to swim through what is the news for today.

LONDON - Claims by MI5 and the Government that large numbers of young Muslims support terrorism are countered in a new survey that shows less than 1 per cent of the Islamic community sympathise with the actions of the 7/7 London bombers. The findings are published in the wake of a speech made by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director-general of MI5, in which she said that opinion polls indicated that over 100,000 of British citizens consider the July attacks were justified. The new survey: Muslim views: Foreign policy and its effects, was carried out across the Muslim community in October and concludes that there is almost no support for terrorism amongst the Muslim community with just 1 per cent of those surveyed supporting the 7/7 London bombings.

Sorry, but 1% of what? 1% can end up being a rather large group of people. That along with the fact that 100,000 Brits thought the attack was justified.

"Sorry, but 1% of what? 1% can end up being a rather large group of people. That along with the fact that 100,000 Brits thought the attack was justified."

2001 census said 1,536,015 muslims in England and wales. 1% of that is 15,360 or so. Not 100k, mind you, but not insignificant, either. I still don't buy the idea that you'd get an accurate reading on such a controversial question, though.

Given the environment of suspicion in the US and UK, how many Muslims would you think would admit publicly to support such, even to someone doing a poll? 10%? If only 10% admit it, that would be well over 100k total. Maybe they don't, but do we assume innocence until guilt is proven on other issues?

A while back a lot of people made a stink over the Senate campaign ad associating Ford with a white bimbo, saying that it took advantage of the inherent racism there in TN. How many people in TN can you assume would admit to having that attitude on the phone, and that attitude isn't illegal. But we're supposed to believe people would admit to supporting terrorism?

LOL... we have to assume southerners to be racists when we make an attack ad, but we can't assume muslims to be closet supporters of terrorism. How we pick and choose...

2001 census said 1,536,015 muslims in England and wales. 1% of that is 15,360 or so. Not 100k, mind you, but not insignificant, either. - Bakerstreet

Credit and thanks to Bakerstreet for doing the homework. I wanted to answer drmiler's very appropriate question by sourcing the methodology used by the survey itself but never does it anywhere explicitly state how many people were surveyed.

Here is the survey in HTML;

WWW Link">Link

But we're supposed to believe people would admit to supporting terrorism? - Bakerstreet

I thought that was the point of the poll given in Brad's Religion of Peace Update: November 2006

WWW Link

Polls of Muslims in a variety of country demonstrates that significant percentages of them (i.e. double digit %'s) believe suicide bombings are justifiable to defend Islam.

And so YOUR response is to essentially label those who read the poll and conclude that significant percentages of Muslims (i.e. double digit %'s) believe that suicide bombings are justifiable to defend Islam are somehow a bunch of naive yokels?

Would you care to put up YOUR travel experience against mine, Def?  If you want to have a "who is more worldly" comparison, I'm all over that.  Don't sit around and take on the air of quiet superiority and toss off those who don't share your views as a bunch of unenlightened primitives unless you're willing to put up your own enlightened bonafides.  How many Islamic nations have you traveled in? How many months/years have you spent in them? How many other countries have you visited?

Speaking of stereotypes, your post is a good textbook example of the problem with the American left.  Those who disagree with you aren't simply wrong. They are wrong because they're a bunch of unelightened, stupid, provincial rednecks. 

If only you could..somehow educate us then we too would see the obviousness of your wisdom and opinions.

But by all means, if you want to get into a bonafides comparison, let's do it.  But if I were in your shoes, I'd be trying to address the poll results (i.e. what exactly was invalid about the poll I showed? A single poll from Britain does nothing to counter what I posted and certainly doesn't justify your rather nasty insinuations of those whose opinions you don't share) rather than attacking me personally as somehow being some ignorant provincial. 

 

"I thought that was the point of the poll given in Brad's Religion of Peace Update: November 2006"

Last I heard supporting Hamas wasn't a crime in Middle Eastern countries. Donate money knowingly to them in the US or UK and it is. You think you can weigh the responses by people in Palestine with the same weight as people in the UK?

In this political climate I would imagine you'd get about as much accuracy as if you asked if people supported child molestation.

My article rests on its own merits and does not require yours to be wrong. My experiences and travels do not need comparison to yours for me to draw very correct conclusions separete from yours.

"rather than attacking me personally as somehow being some ignorant provincial."
- Drag

You've jumped to a lot of conclusions. This is the worst. Your name is never mentioned, you are never referred to within the article. Unless of course you see yourself meeting these requirements

A) Don't actually know any Muslims,

Are incredibly localized...and

C) Voted for the same President twice because they were a part of the ABD (Anyone But a Democrat - no matter how bad the candidate is!) crowd . A President, who, though he was elected twice, is less popular then his father who served only one term.

But you are a worldly man, so much so that you'd like to compare your travels to mine to prove once and for all who is right and who is wrong, so I guess you, despite all possible wishing, don't apply.

Oh, and I'm just such a hardcore lefty too, get off that lame kick. You know it drives me nuts. (He doesn't agree with me - he's a liberal - get him!!!)

But we're supposed to believe people would admit to supporting terrorism? - Bakerstreet

I thought that was the point of the poll given in Brad's Religion of Peace Update: November 2006. - Deference

I think that was your point, Brad, pure and simple. If there's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, why are you being so defensive about it?

You're twisting my words. Why shouldn't people in the middle east admit it? You really think you can equate the attitude toward terrorism in Palestine to the attitudes in the UK? You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course Muslims in Britain wouldn't want to admit to supporting terrorism.

You're twisting my words. - BakerStreet

No. I only gave my opinion of what you said. I did not attempt to alter them in any fashion. Good luck with the double team.


i.e. what exactly was invalid about the poll I showed? - Drag

I never used my survey to disprove yours. Sorry you feel that way. This is what I said when Bakerstreet broached that topic.


Comparing multiple polls provides a broader context. That's good. I invite any pertinent polls you would have to offer. - Deference

So why did I include a poll in the first place?

I don't think polls were the issue, they were only given as factual sources to aide readers in gaining that broader view and understanding my comprehension and interpretation of some of what is to be read when one is attempting to swim through what is the news for today. - Deference

It's not a matter of double teaming. You are saying that because a smaller number of people in the UK claim to support terrorism, that it effects the results of polls taken in Palestine.

Your post most certainly wanted to draw comparisons, because you talk about 'slander' in the subtitle. Even if your poll is accurate, that's still 15,000+ Muslims that openly support terrorism. You really think that there aren't more who simply fear speaking out in a nation where terrorism is anathema?

So, your title is:

Muslims Shake Stereotype in Latest Poll

I'd have to ask, how? 15,000 muslims openly supporting terrorism doesn't strike you as a fairly large number, especially given the obvious threat to people who would admit such?

You've jumped to a lot of conclusions. This is the worst. Your name is never mentioned, you are never referred to within the article. Unless of course you see yourself meeting these requirements

Please.  You know what's more obnoxious than someone writing a blog about someone else? Someone who writes a blog about someone else and then gets called on it and then tries to backtrack.

I'm the one who has been very explicitly stating that I think Islam is an ideology that promotes violence. Your article is largely in response to the poll I put up.

You, not I, are the one that claimed that people who think Islam and terrorism are tied together are a bunch of ignorant, unworldly people who probably have never met a Muslim. 

But you are a worldly man, so much so that you'd like to compare your travels to mine to prove once and for all who is right and who is wrong, so I guess you, despite all possible wishing, don't apply.

I don't think my experiences make your opinion invalid. YOU are the one who tried to argue that people who equate Islam and terrorism are unworldly. I was demonstrating that no, there's no such correlation.

To be specific: If you want to argue that Islam and terrorism aren't linked, then fine, do so. But if you're going to write a post that mostly is about belittleing people who have different opinions than you, then I'm going to address that too.

Bakerstreet writes: Your post most certainly wanted to draw comparisons, because you talk about 'slander' in the subtitle. Even if your poll is accurate, that's still 15,000+ Muslims that openly support terrorism. You really think that there aren't more who simply fear speaking out in a nation where terrorism is anathema?

Worse than just supporting terrorism, but literally supported a specific terrorist event -- the 7/7 bombings.  I.e. According to the poll deference provided, 1% of Muslims supported a specific attack that could just as easily have killed them.  Talk about an apples to oranges poll. Even 1% is amazing considering that it was about a specific attack that could have affected them directly.

To use an analogy, a poll asking whether Americans support bombing cities in the United States that have terrorists is likely to have very different results than a poll asking whether Americans support bombing cities that aren't in the United States.

As Bakerstreet points out, 15,000 British Muslims don't just support terrorism, but support indiscriminate terror bombings in the country they are currently residing in that have no specific point other than to kill British citizens.

So not only can we equate Islam to terrorism but we can now equate Islam to idiocy as well thanks to Deference's poll.

 

You are both barking up the wrong tree.

Bakerstreet said it when he accused me of comparing "apples to oranges".

You really think you can equate the attitude toward terrorism in Palestine to the attitudes in the UK? You're comparing apples to oranges. - Bakerstreet

I didn't. I never attempted to. As should be known and has been mentioned, a poll in the UK is not the equivelent of one taken in Pakistan, and Turkey, and Indonesia.

Bakerstreet, you and Draginol have attempted to apply apples to oranges with Religion of Peace Update: November 2006 and Muslims Shake Stereotypes in Latest Poll upon a single link given within the article due to your wont to loathe and fear Muslims and inflame similar sentiment among the public JU reader(s).

*yawn*

Drag, you wrote a three sentence 'article' introducing Muslims as those who allegedly state;"In many Islamic countries, intentionally murdering innocents in the name of Islam is considered acceptable by significant portions of the population. When, in truth, the question asked by the poll was;"[Is]Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam justified" Credit to Tova for pointing that out before I thunk it.

If I were to attack your poll Draginol, I would first post on your thread, then, introduce pertinent polls that contradict the one offered, then challenge the methodology of your poll followed by scathing attacks on your character, "He's a cut-and-run Libertarian!" Or something similar. J\K. Fortunately, I realized that accepting your frame of the issue was simply bogus.

As drmiler pointed out, he had no source to rely upon when it came to such requisites pertaining to my poll and petitioned me.

Sorry, but 1% of what? 1% can end up being a rather large group of people. That along with the fact that 100,000 Brits thought the attack was justified. - Drmiler

I couldn't find any mention in the survey addressing his question. In fact, I said:

Credit and thanks to Bakerstreet for doing the homework. I wanted to answer drmiler's very appropriate question by sourcing the methodology used by the survey itself but never does it anywhere explicitly state how many people were surveyed. - Deference

Who cares? The poll wasn't the big find, nor the selling point (as you know). Personalizing the issue was. I know some Muslims, they don't fit the image you sell, for whatever reasons. I think your particular attitude concerning all followers of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon his name) atrocious. You seemingly want to make us all believe the majority of Muslims want to kill and / or mass convert us all... - and you have the gall to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist on multiple threads?

I didn't comment on your thread Religion of Peace Update: November 2006 or engage you in any debate deliberately because you are, quite simply, Anti-Muslim. You seemingly and ironically want to make the Muslim the new 'Jew'. That's fine, but I would think it more advantageous for you to share your latest 'Muslim Encounter' with us detailing your conversation with a Muslim speaking of their lust for world dominance and mass conversion seeing as how well traveled and learned you proclaim to be. Yet, you provide no illustration or dialogue.

You provide a poll; inacurrately framed.

We should be reconciling with, understanding, and integrating Muslims to American idealogy or respecting their wishes to be left alone, not offering fear and loathing to our populus; inciting mass genocide. You are wrong in your very transparent attempts to criminalize ascribers to a religion.

Muslims Shake Stereotypes offers a view away from yours, Drag, but it was never an attempt to address or directly compare Religion of Peace Updates: November 2006, my article serves to complement it.

"You seemingly and ironically want to make the Muslim the new 'Jew'.

I don't remember ever being afraid of Jewish terrorists. Outside a dried up turd of a nation that people seem to feel strongly about, no one has every really had any reason to fear jews. If radical islam focused its violence there, people might have a more moderate opinion of them.

But... when you have to worry every time you fly on an airplane or visit a really tall building, it starts to eat at you. I'm sorry it oozes over onto your Muslim friends, but as long as people are doing violence in the name of Islam, the violence makes Islam an issue. Given the diatribes I read about Christianity, I don't think it's any different on the other side.

Yes, that vitriol was more directed towards Draginol, you haven't really posted anything bolstering hatred towards Muslims that I've read.

I don't think Brad has either. You can make this out to be isolated, but there are instances of the same fundamentalist islamic culture springing up here and in Europe and everywhere. I read an article yesterday about a muslim here in America that was tossed out of his mosque for writing a newspaper editorial condemning terrorist organizations.

To brad, this is a cultural phenomenon. You might call it a sub-culture, but it is definitely part of the environment in Islam today. I don't believe you'd have to work hard at all to find people very different than your friends. How would you address it? I think everyone can agree that it has to be addressed.

Yes, that vitriol was more directed towards Draginol, you haven't really posted anything bolstering hatred towards Muslims that I've read.

I point out that large %'s of Muslims thinks it is okay to target civilians in the name of Islam and I am bolstering hatred.

Okay, it's pointless to discuss topics with you since you seem incapable of seperating the message from the messenger.

You're lucky I'm not the hatred filled redneck you seem to want to paint me and others who don't agree with you as or else I'd not allow people like you to post here.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? Your right to do anything on this site is predicated on my personal tolerance. So if you're going to argue I have no tolerance or that I'm hate-filled or whatever, I'm happy to oblige you by demonstrating the difference between tolerance and intolerance.

I don't hate Muslims. I do, have a problem with their ideology -- Islam. I think it promotes violence. If this  were the 1930s, I would be saying the same thing about Nazism and Communism -- ideologies that promote very bad things. But that doesn't mean that every Nazi or Communist is a monster or that I hate anybody.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? - Draginol

Let's fix that right away. There will be no personal communication between you and I. You are blacklisted from Agenda and Malice.

The last person I ever considered blacklisting was Sir Peter Maxwell.

Congratulations.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? - Draginol Let's fix that right away. There will be no personal communication between you and I. You are blacklisted from Agenda and Malice. The last person I ever considered blacklisting was Sir Peter Maxwell. Congratulations.

I would not "push" this agenda if I were you! It's not a very intelligent thing to do.

Thanks for the advice, Drmiler, but let's drop it.