Guest MattP Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 Not even biting, Matthew! On the credibility of the survey, a sample size of 1,000 gives a 3% confidence level on any realistic population size. 1,000 people therefore is the widely accepted benchmark for statistical credibility. One thing I would question though is the method of data collection. From what I gather this was a telephone survey, which means those carrying out the survey likely knew, or could have found out, the names and addresses of those they were surveying. I don't know about anyone else, but if I held extreme views I'd probably hold back considerably if being questioned under those circumstances. I wonder how much more support for extremism there would have been had there been true anonymity. Exactly what I thought, I mean I doubt many people would be open about voting BNP in elections talking to people on a phone let alone actually condoning and admitted to supporting these groups. The true figure would be probably be higher than any poll will give.
MooseBreath Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 Hi there Mr Muhammed, I'm Peter Davis from bob's surveys, you hold extreme views, yes? Oh yes Mr Davis, person who I don't know who has made an unsolicited phone call to my house, I'm a full time extremist and I'd definitely love to tell you, an anonymous voice on the phone, all about it. I'm not wary at all about admitting to what I know to be deeply unpopular opinions to complete strangers who know all my details.
Buce Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 Hi there Mr Muhammed, I'm Peter Davis from bob's surveys, you hold extreme views, yes? Oh yes Mr Davis, person who I don't know who has made an unsolicited phone call to my house, I'm a full time extremist and I'd definitely love to tell you, an anonymous voice on the phone, all about it. I'm not wary at all about admitting to what I know to be deeply unpopular opinions to complete strangers who know all my details. The poll doesn't confirm your preconceptions, therefore there must be something wrong with the methodology. That's a weak argument, even for you.
MooseBreath Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 The poll doesn't confirm your preconceptions, therefore there must be something wrong with the methodology. That's a weak argument, even for you. Actually I think the poll does confirm that a frighteningly high proportion of British Muslims hold views that I would consider radical and dangerously incompatible with my own and those of the majority of reasonable people who live here. I also supported one aspect of the methodology - the sample size - but i think the collection methodology is genuinely questionable. I just can't imagine many people talking frankly about such views with complete strangers who called them in their homes out of the blue. Can you? We've all got our vices, I'm sure if we're being sensible we can all relate to the idea that we might not want to have open discussions about those things on the telephone with people we don't know.
Webbo Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 As a right winger I support individual liberty and religious freedom.
Merging Cultures Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 I'm with Webbo. And also I'd say that actually, I think the response to the poll does confirm that a frighteningly high proportion of British FT members hold views that I would consider radical and dangerously incompatible with my own and those of the majority of people who live there.
Captain... Posted 26 February 2015 Posted 26 February 2015 I think what a lot of people can't get there head around is why Islam is treated with such exaggerated respect when it comes to issues like this. Because the hysteria that surrounds every Islamic extremist incident is disproportional. There has been next to no coverage of the Militant atheists that killed 3 Muslims. More people in the UK are killed through gang violence than by Muslim extremists, yet we don't see the same coverage of gang violence. More people in the UK are killed in alcohol related violence, yet we still all go to the pub and get drunk. Russian 'Rebels' are on the brink of causing a third world war, but we don't question leaders of the Russian community on whether they condemn or sympathise with the motives of the 'Rebels'. Every incident of Islamic terrorism is met with a disproportional response by the media. That is not to say it shouldn't be reported and shouldn't be roundly condemned, but the scale of the response and the targets of the media is what forces people to defend the innocent muslims being blamed for the actions of people who worship the same God. Anyone who commits a terrorist act and takes another life for such spurious reasons as a drawing is a grade A cvnt, but sharing a belief system with such a cvnt does not make someone guilty of anything.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Because the hysteria that surrounds every Islamic extremist incident is disproportional. There has been next to no coverage of the Militant atheists that killed 3 Muslims. More people in the UK are killed through gang violence than by Muslim extremists, yet we don't see the same coverage of gang violence. More people in the UK are killed in alcohol related violence, yet we still all go to the pub and get drunk. Russian 'Rebels' are on the brink of causing a third world war, but we don't question leaders of the Russian community on whether they condemn or sympathise with the motives of the 'Rebels'. Every incident of Islamic terrorism is met with a disproportional response by the media. That is not to say it shouldn't be reported and shouldn't be roundly condemned, but the scale of the response and the targets of the media is what forces people to defend the innocent muslims being blamed for the actions of people who worship the same God. Anyone who commits a terrorist act and takes another life for such spurious reasons as a drawing is a grade A cvnt, but sharing a belief system with such a cvnt does not make someone guilty of anything. Exactly. I'm English-born of mainly Irish family, and old enough to remember when the IRA were causing mayhem, blowing up innocent civilians etc. Most of my family here and most of the people I met on holiday in Ireland would have supported a united Ireland in theory, but I never met anyone who supported IRA bombing of civilians - though obviously that minority existed. So, there can be a big difference between supporting the motives of terrorists and supporting their actions. Should my mild-mannered Dad have been forced to publicly declare his opposition to the IRA because he was Irish? If he'd done so, his declaration would have been something like this: "It would have been better if Ireland hadn't been partitioned, but I'd have quite liked the idea of a federal British Isles - with a devolved Scotland & Wales and a devolved, united Ireland with rights protected for all....but blowing people up is just wrong"
leicsmac Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Hey Alf/Cap, get out of it. We don't want your reasoned and logical arguments in here - we want mass hysteria!
MooseBreath Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 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 OK so we can't spin it but we can hope that strawman arguments and references to gang violence and - weirdly - alcohol related deaths sufficiently take the pressure off and then we can just, you know, sweep sweep sweep, carpet carpet carpet.
leicsmac Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 OK so we can't spin it but we can hope that strawman arguments and references to gang violence and - weirdly - alcohol related deaths sufficiently take the pressure off and then we can just, you know, sweep sweep sweep, carpet carpet carpet. Honest question. What makes this a bigger, more special threat than any other group of ideological nutjobs around the world?
Finnegan Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Honest question. What makes this a bigger, more special threat than any other group of ideological nutjobs around the world? Fox News.
MooseBreath Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Honest question. What makes this a bigger, more special threat than any other group of ideological nutjobs around the world?To me, the fact that other groups of ideological nutjobs around the world don't have hundreds of thousands of supporters and sympathisers in the country in which I live. The fact that these other groups don't commit regular attacks on innocent civilians on western soil. The fact that there aren't hundred if not thousands of people with British passports currently being trained and motivated by these other groups to return home and commit further acts of terror. In short because this group presents a real threat to my safety and lifestyle whereas the others don't. Honest question, if the EDL started murdering people and setting up training camps for other would-be killers and were recruiting thousands of young brits, would you be so keen to dismiss it?
leicsmac Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Fox News. To me, the fact that other groups of ideological nutjobs around the world don't have hundreds of thousands of supporters and sympathisers in the country in which I live. The fact that these other groups don't commit regular attacks on innocent civilians on western soil. The fact that there aren't hundred if not thousands of people with British passports currently being trained and motivated by these other groups to return home and commit further acts of terror. In short because this group presents a real threat to my safety and lifestyle whereas the others don't. Honest question, if the EDL started murdering people and setting up training camps for other would-be killers and were recruiting thousands of young brits, would you be so keen to dismiss it? Al Qaeda represented a similar threat, both in number of sympathisers and willingess to carry out acts of terror on Western soil - in fact they were far more active about it than the current batch of radical Muslim groups are. Where are they now? You could also say the same of the IRA at the height of their power. And we didn't beat them through mass alienation and marginalisation. We beat them through not being afraid of them and applying a surgical response. Which is exactly what is needed here. The only reason ISIS are still any kind of threat at all is because the powers that be are worried about the political blowback of getting involved in another ME dustup - ISIS knows that would change if they tried anything massive on Western soil. If the EDL were going about such practice, I would want the same thing. A surgical response to weed out the nutters who were actually doing the bad stuff and poisoning the minds of others. The country I live in is remarkably calm considering it is right next to a nuclear-armed state comprised of millions of people that wishes to wipe it off the map - a notable threat to their safety - for the last 60 years. That's the way such things should be handled.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Honest question. What makes this a bigger, more special threat than any other group of ideological nutjobs around the world?I honestly don't know how you can ask that question with a serious face, it's incredible how dismissive you are towards this lot. We're talking about a group who have been described by every human rights groups as having committed genocide on a historical scale. We're at the point where they are confident enough to chop people's heads off and watch the blood flow into the Mediterranean. And they are expanding at a huge rate (Kurdish forces say strength could be up to 250,000). They have thousands of sympathisers in my own country and unlike the nutters to the north of you they literally don't seem to care or realise what the consequences of their actions are (although our limp wristed response is also responsible for that). Again parallels with Rotherham, horrific things occurring and people almost turning a blind eye whilst blaming right wing news organisations for exaggerated it.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 The Irish comparison isn't really relevant either. The IRA were political, there was always an ending, this is ideological with no ending. The IRA also targeted specific people and didn't want to kill as many innocents as possible, they weren't deliberately rounding up innocent English people to rape, torture and kill on a mass scale for enjoyment.
leicsmac Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 I honestly don't know how you can ask that question with a serious face, it's incredible how dismissive you are towards this lot. We're talking about a group who have been described by every human rights groups as having committed genocide on a historical scale. We're at the point where they are confident enough to chop people's heads off and watch the blood flow into the Mediterranean. And they are expanding at a huge rate (Kurdish forces say strength could be up to 250,000). They have thousands of sympathisers in my own country and unlike the nutters to the north of you they literally don't seem to care or realise what the consequences of their actions are (although our limp wristed response is also responsible for that). Again parallels with Rotherham, horrific things occurring and people almost turning a blind eye whilst blaming right wing news organisations for exaggerated it. They're hardly the first or last group to have committed genocide on a massive scale in their own backyards, are they? And they're also hardly the first to want to kill a shitload of Westerners with sympathisers in the UK and fill the Med with a 'sea of blood' (or whatever dialogue they have used). I do agree however that our response to them has been far too limp wristed, and they will start to care what the consequences of their actions are when the inevitable harsher response comes. Right now however, as I said, they serve a useful purpose as a bogeyman and the West is too busy dealing with the possible political blowback of another ME war, as well as Putin going all 1950's Soviet-era hardman in the Ukraine.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 They're hardly the first or last group to have committed genocide on a massive scale in their own backyards, are they? And they're also hardly the first to want to kill a shitload of Westerners with sympathisers in the UK and fill the Med with a 'sea of blood' (or whatever dialogue they have used). I do agree however that our response to them has been far too limp wristed, and they will start to care what the consequences of their actions are when the inevitable harsher response comes. Right now however, as I said, they serve a useful purpose as a bogeyman and the West is too busy dealing with the possible political blowback of another ME war, as well as Putin going all 1950's Soviet-era hardman in the Ukraine. No, the difference is though groups like Al Queda and Boko Haram are hiding in the forests and mountains, these guys are expanding at a rapid rate and are attractive thousands of Westeners to go and join them each and every month. There crimes and numbers in terms of death are staggering for a fairly new group. Put it this way, give me a group of people on the planet now who pose as much threat as these have? We're talking about people here who would shoot down passenger planes and use nuclear weapons like a shot, I don't think any other group would do that, these may have this capability quicker than we think if we don't actualyl act. It's easy to dismiss these as a threat and fantasy of Fox News in the West if you haven't been one of the 150,000 odd who have been killed or enslaved by them.
leicsmac Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 No, the difference is though groups like Al Queda and Boko Haram are hiding in the forests and mountains, these guys are expanding at a rapid rate and are attractive thousands of Westeners to go and join them each and every month. There crimes and numbers in terms of death are staggering for a fairly new group. Put it this way, give me a group of people on the planet now who pose as much threat as these have? We're talking about people here who would shoot down passenger planes and use nuclear weapons like a shot, I don't think any other group would do that, these may have this capability quicker than we think if we don't actualyl act. It's easy to dismiss these as a threat and fantasy of Fox News in the West if you haven't been one of the 150,000 odd who have been killed or enslaved by them. Al Qaeda went quite a bit better than shooting down a passenger plane, and I'm sure they would have used a nuclear weapon too if they'd had the chance to get their hands on one. I'm still unconvinced that ISIS are currently as big a threat as they were, let alone on a par with the threat posed by better armed nation states. The two things they have in their favour is savvy use of the Internet to appear attractive and reasonable manpower strength (but with no real hardware to back it up by comparison to nation states) as a result. As for the 150000 figure - as I said, the're hardly the first or last group to kill loads of people in their own backyard, and for now their own goals seem pretty set on establishing a quasi nationstate of their own before turning their attention elsewhere. They must of course be stopped before that happens.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Al Qaeda went quite a bit better than shooting down a passenger plane, and I'm sure they would have used a nuclear weapon too if they'd had the chance to get their hands on one. I'm still unconvinced that ISIS are currently as big a threat as they were, let alone on a par with the threat posed by better armed nation states. The two things they have in their favour is savvy use of the Internet to appear attractive and reasonable manpower strength (but with no real hardware to back it up by comparison to nation states) as a result. As for the 150000 figure - as I said, the're hardly the first or last group to kill loads of people in their own backyard, and for now their own goals seem pretty set on establishing a quasi nationstate of their own before turning their attention elsewhere. They must of course be stopped before that happens. Was Al Queda really an organised group though? Many people by the end of the war in Afghanistan has came to the conclusion it was a ragtag bunch fighting on an ideology rather than any created force. Stories like this make me sad... http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/thousands-sign-petition-to-stop-antigay-scholar-haitham-alhaddad-from-speaking-day-before-national-student-pride-festival-10066017.html As I've said before freedom of speech is paramount but the actual Islamic society of the University not only tolerate these speakers but actually invite and encourage them to spread their hate, from memory it's the same university that elected two Hizb Tahir members as well to lead the Islamic Society despite the the fact that the NUS is suppose to have a strict ban on radical groups.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Was Al Queda really an organised group though? Many people by the end of the war in Afghanistan has came to the conclusion it was a ragtag bunch fighting on an ideology rather than any created force. Stories like this make me sad... http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/thousands-sign-petition-to-stop-antigay-scholar-haitham-alhaddad-from-speaking-day-before-national-student-pride-festival-10066017.html As I've said before freedom of speech is paramount but the actual Islamic society of the University not only tolerate these speakers but actually invite and encourage them to spread their hate, from memory it's the same university that elected two Hizb Tahir members as well to lead the Islamic Society despite the the fact that the NUS is suppose to have a strict ban on radical groups. It is. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8446562/Fears-that-university-has-been-infiltrated-by-Islamist-extremists.html A report in Foreign Affairs Journal claims that Hizb ut-Tahrir "dominates" the British Islamist "scene" with some 8,500 members in the United Kingdom, compared to only 1,000 for a rival, Muslim Association of Britain.[154] According to ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir associate Maajid Nawaz Omar Bakri encouraged its members to engage in vigilantism against non Muslims and Muslim women: "We were encouraged by Omar Bakri to operate like street gangs and we did, prowling London, fighting Indian Sikhs in the west and African Christians in the east. We intimidated Muslim women until they wore the hijab and we thought we were invincible."[155 ] According to another ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir associate Ed Husain, "Britain remains vital to the Hizb, for it gives the group access to the global media and provides a fertile recruiting ground at mosques and universities."[156] Nice people.
Captain... Posted 27 February 2015 Posted 27 February 2015 Again parallels with Rotherham, horrific things occurring and people almost turning a blind eye whilst blaming right wing news organisations for exaggerated it. Was there any evidence of the Muslim community protecting and hiding these paedophiles? The most disgusting thing about the Rotherham incident was the police's fear of approaching it for fear of being called racist. What Some people fail to appreciate is that the labelling of the whole Muslim community as responsible for Rotherham, for Lee Rigby, for ISIS is what indirectly causes this. Blaming the whole community for the actions of a minority is viewed by a lot of people as racist, this then perpetuates the idea that any criticism of Islam is racist, and that is where that fear by the Rotherham police came from. People, like the starter of this thread, are deliberately and wilfully misrepresent the facts to push their anti-Muslim agenda. When people start blatantly lying it brings out a reaction from people who are interested in the truth. There is no denying that ISIS is one of the biggest threats in the modern world, but they do not represent all Muslims, and there shouldn't be any need for a survey like the one in the original post. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be investigating Muslim communities and identifying potential terrorists and more importantly those that aim to groom and convert the vulnerable. All of this can be done without alienating whole communities and stoking up the tension between ethic groups. Nobody should be persecuted purely for what they believe and nobody should feel afraid of investigating muslims when a crime is reported. The problem is the disproportional reaction and hysteria whenever Muslims are involved and yet very serious problems on our doorstep are largely unreported.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.