Head Honcho Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 That's 750,000 people on the streets of Britain having sympathy for what went on in Paris. I think the BBC got their headline wrong here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196
AKCJ Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 It you read the article its actually 270 British Muslims who have sympathy for what went on in Paris.
Guest MattP Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Er, 1000 people were polled. Which is generally considered a fair reflection of a 'community', we use between 1,000 and 2,000 for most Mori/ICM polls on the General Election and they are generally all within 5% of each other. 27% seems about in line with most other polls as well for this sort of thing, similar figures are given for those who would rather live under Sharia Law and that dream of Britain becoming an Islamic state ( http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291)although I found this far more worrying this given how much I thinik freedom of speech is currently being trampled over and will continue to be... 78% of Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted I found the fact that 1 in 5 feel Islam is completely incompatible with Western Society despite living in it quite an interesting viewpoint.
Buce Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 That's 750,000 people on the streets of Britain having sympathy for what went on in Paris. I think the BBC got their headline wrong here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196 You are the one using a mis-leading headline: 27% of those polled have some sympathy with the motives of the Paris murderers. That does not translate as 27% support terrorist acts.
Xen Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Having sympathy for the motives behind the attacks, and actually supporting the attacks itself are two wildly different things. If our owners sacked pearson I'd have sympathy for their motives, but id disagree with the decision. This is the same, just on a much more extreme level. Stop trying to spin this into something worse than it is which only serves to perpetuate the cycle of hate and make the situation worse.
purpleronnie Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Most of these polls are stupid Racist. They're great plumbers.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Where's Leicesterpool when you need him?!
Guest MattP Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Having sympathy for the motives behind the attacks, and actually supporting the attacks itself are two wildly different things. They are and Buce was right to point it out. It's fcuking weird though isn't it either way? Having sympathy for people engaging in mass murder for the crime of drawing a cartoon of a bloke who lived 1,400 years ago? I mean...really, really weird.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 They are and Buce was right to point it out. It's fcuking weird though isn't it either way? Having sympathy for people engaging in mass murder for the crime of drawing a cartoon of a bloke who MAY HAVE lived 1,400 years ago? I mean...really, really weird.
Mark_w Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 They are and Buce was right to point it out. It's fcuking weird though isn't it either way? Having sympathy for people engaging in mass murder for the crime of drawing a cartoon of a bloke who lived 1,400 years ago? I mean...really, really weird. They almost all don't have sympathy for the people engaging in mass murder, that's precisely the point that's being made when people are highlighting the word 'motives'. At worst the majority of the 27% referenced have an issue with a cartoon. Agreeing with the issues that terrorists have is not the same as advocating terrorism or feeling sympathy for terrorists themselves. In almost all cases it's not a case of understanding, pitying or agreeing with terrorism or terrorists.
Guest MattP Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 They almost all don't have sympathy for the people engaging in mass murder, that's precisely the point that's being made when people are highlighting the word 'motives'. At worst the majority of the 27% referenced have an issue with a cartoon. Agreeing with the issues that terrorists have is not the same as advocating terrorism or feeling sympathy for terrorists themselves. In almost all cases it's not a case of understanding, pitying or agreeing with terrorism or terrorists. What are you basing that on? Surely the issue with the cartoon or drawing the Prophet (i.e the issues around the event) would be more best described by the 78% of Muslims that want them prosecuted for doing such things? We can dress this up all we want but it doesn't bode well when such a proportion of people can show any sympathy or justification for anything around what happened in Paris.
Mark_w Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 What are you basing that on? Surely the issue with the cartoon or drawing the Prophet (i.e the issues around the event) would be more best described by the 78% of Muslims that want them prosecuted for doing such things? We can dress this up all we want but it doesn't bode well when such a proportion of people can show any sympathy or justification for anything around what happened in Paris. Oh my God they are not justifying murder by saying they sympathize with the motive. They are just saying they think drawing and publishing a cartoon of Muhammad is wrong, which is a bit silly yes, but it's not the same as advocating terrorism. People have killed in the name of animal rights. If I was asked do you sympathize with their view on animal rights (ie. their motives)? In a lot of cases I'd say 'yes', that would not mean that I advocate murder, have any sympathy with the guilty party or understand their actions.
Guest MattP Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Oh my God they are not justifying murder by saying they sympathize with the motive. They are just saying they think drawing and publishing a cartoon of Muhammad is wrong, which is a bit silly yes, but it's not the same as advocating terrorism. People have killed in the name of animal rights. If I was asked do you sympathize with their view on animal rights (ie. their motives)? In a lot of cases I'd say 'yes', that would not mean that I advocate murder, have any sympathy with the guilty party or understand their actions. But what are you basing your comment of 'They almost all don't have sympathy for the people engaging in mass murder' - I don't think you are have anything to base this on from what we are reading, you're just making assumptions about other people's reasoning - in the poll I posted it says "More worryingly 19% say they respect Osama bin Laden (6% say they highly respect him), 17% respect Saddam Hussein and 16% respect Abu Hamza" - a slightly smaller figure than the 27% posted and you can't tell me that those sympathies are based on motives rather than the actions of the individual. Believe me the figure for sympathising with the motives of the cartoon would be far higher than 27% (as it says, this figures appears to be related to violence) - as already produced - the vast majority of Muslims want people to be jailed if they insult the Prophet Mohammed. That would be a better figure to go off if you think people are answering on motives around the event rather than the action itself. You've changed the goalposts on the animal rights thing as the question in this poll is inferred that violence was used whereas you are just talking about your opinion in relation to animal rights in general A more accurate question to compare would be do you sympathise with those who used violence towards people who don't respect the rights of animals?
Mark_w Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 But what are you basing your comment of 'They almost all don't have sympathy for the people engaging in mass murder' - I don't think you are have anything to base this on from what we are reading, you're just making assumptions about other people's reasoning - in the poll I posted it says "More worryingly 19% say they respect Osama bin Laden (6% say they highly respect him), 17% respect Saddam Hussein and 16% respect Abu Hamza" - a slightly smaller figure than the 27% posted and you can't tell me that those sympathies are based on motives rather than the actions of the individual. Believe me the figure for sympathising with the motives of the cartoon would be far higher than 27% (as it says, this figures appears to be related to violence) - as already produced - the vast majority of Muslims want people to be jailed if they insult the Prophet Mohammed. That would be a better figure to go off if you think people are answering on motives around the event rather than the action itself. You've changed the goalposts on the animal rights thing as the question in this poll is inferred that violence was used whereas you are just talking about your opinion in relation to animal rights in general A more accurate question to compare would be do you sympathise with those who used violence towards people who don't respect the rights of animals? Well apparently 93% say they should obey British laws, and a pretty noteworthy British law is 'don't kill people because you don't like their cartoons' at least there's a law to that affect. I didn't move the goal posts by bringing up animal rights because I'm specifically referencing people who have committed acts of terror against people who don't respect the rights of animals. And I'd say in response to your question, again, that I have sympathy with the motives but not with the act of violence or the people committing violence. The question asked was about sympathy for motives, not sympathy for people. Edit: Just had a look at the full list and the most interesting in my view is the one that asks whether organizations that publish images of the Prophet deserve to be attacked, 11% agree with that. Which is a staggeringly high and disturbing figure (depending on peoples definition of attack) I agree. But it's not 'most' of the 27%.
Renart Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 That's 750,000 people on the streets of Britain having sympathy for what went on in Paris. I think the BBC got their headline wrong here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196 You are the one using a mis-leading headline: 27% of those polled have some sympathy with the motives of the Paris murderers. That does not translate as 27% support terrorist acts. Having sympathy for the motives behind the attacks, and actually supporting the attacks itself are two wildly different things. If our owners sacked pearson I'd have sympathy for their motives, but id disagree with the decision. This is the same, just on a much more extreme level. Stop trying to spin this into something worse than it is which only serves to perpetuate the cycle of hate and make the situation worse. On this point, it is the wording of the question that draws that 27%. They do not support the attacks but have some sympathy with the motives (not the people or the action). Now, depending on how that is interpreted, I have some sympathy with the motives (not the people or the action). I believe in 'freedom of speech' but, on a very personal level, I cannot understand 'freedom of speech' being used in order to deliberately attack an individual or a section of society. That is not to say that I would change it but a person's beliefs can be very important to them and if I know that I will offend them then I am unlikely to even want to offend them and then hide behind 'freedom of speech'. I have no belief and I would agree with MattP that I often find religion 'baffling', but I do understand that to some such things are important. That 27% does not mean that those people support the terrorists, in the same way as this post does not mean I support the terrorists (far from it) but it does mean show that there is an understanding of the pain that the production of such images might bring to some people. I think that if I was asked that question then I would have to think very hard about what it means and I can see that for some it might be a way of exercising a view without showing outright support. There was a case at a university recently where a couple of student, who were members of an atheist society, went to a freshers' fair wearing t-shirts with images of the prophet and Christ on them. Complaints were made and they were asked to remove them and refused and they were escorted from the property. The university in question were, in the end, forced to publicly apologize to to the individuals. Now, I would, begrudgingly, defend their right to wear that t-shirt under the 'freedom of speech' but would question why the hell you would want to publicly antagonize and deliberately hurt people! I would also question whether it boarders on inciting racial hatred? I am trying to think of an equivalent in a modern British society. Possibly, a public burning of the Union Flag or the defacing of a picture of the monarch. It doesn't quite work in the same way but it might bring about sympathy in you for the motives (not the people or the actions) of those who took the law in to their own hands in response.
Head Honcho Posted 25 February 2015 Author Posted 25 February 2015 Well apparently 93% say they should obey British laws, and a pretty noteworthy British law is 'don't kill people because you don't like their cartoons' at least there's a law to that affect. I didn't move the goal posts by bringing up animal rights because I'm specifically referencing people who have committed acts of terror against people who don't respect the rights of animals. And I'd say in response to your question, again, that I have sympathy with the motives but not with the act of violence or the people committing violence. The question asked was about sympathy for motives, not sympathy for people. That's still nearly 200,000
Head Honcho Posted 25 February 2015 Author Posted 25 February 2015 this went south so fast When you have a forum full of lily livered lefties it's hardly surpising is it?
Mark_w Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 That's still nearly 200,000 Yeah, but they're not all advocating murder, I imagine the majority disagree with a select small number of specific British laws, as I'm sure some non-Muslims do.
Guest MattP Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 Yeah, but they're not all advocating murder, I imagine the majority disagree with a select small number of specific British laws, as I'm sure some non-Muslims do. Do you really believe this deep down? If you answer 'no' to the question 'Do you believe Muslims should obey British law?' I just can't believe for a second the answer is being based on objections to certain aspects of it.
MooseBreath Posted 25 February 2015 Posted 25 February 2015 I think this is the worst one: Acts of violence against those who publish images of the prophet Muhammad can never be justified. In other words, the opposite of "are violent attacks on people who publish images justified" Only 68% agreed with the original premise. That's 32% who do believe that violent attacks on people who publish such images are justified. Not sure how anyone can spin themselves out of that. But I'm sure some will have a go
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.