Muslim's are NUTS

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend Islam". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend America? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you see an eqivalency between strategic bombing during a declared action and someone blowing up a bus of teenagers on their way to a market you are beyond help.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

One clear indicator that Al-Akhras has done nothing more than cut-and-paste (what we writing professionals call "plagiarism") from Ballen's article, is that he makes exactly the same mistake as Ballen, calling it the "Program on International Public Attitudes", but in fact, the center is actually the "Program on International Policy Attitudes" (PIPA). Here we have confirmation that Ahmad Al-Akhras leaves the heavy thinking for others, but the low quality of analysis by Ballen gives us an idea of the level of scholarship Al-Akhras relies upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is Ahmad Al-Akhras?

[ QUOTE ]

When we get around to looking at the actual PIPA study and survey questionnaire they refer to, which was supposed to examine Iranian and American attitudes, we find that both Al-Akhras and Ballen violate one of the cardinal rules of polling analysis by trying to read the question set-up into the actual question that was asked.

In fact, in the PIPA study, those surveyed were not actually asked about "attacks intentionally aimed at civilians". The specific question (found on page 17, Q-I23 of the questionnaire) was:

"Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

Had they thrown the word "intentionally" into the question, there is reason to believe that there would have been a greater negative response. It is also important to note that they are being asked a question about justification, not support, though Ballen and Al-Akhras are trying to subtly equate the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, the exact wording of the question was

[ QUOTE ]
Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly seems like the word "intentionally" is used in the question. Are you honestly trying to say that the people being polled somehow misunderstood the question?

[ QUOTE ]

A first year political science student would immediately observe another problem with the wording of the survey's question - the use of the subjective terms "rarely" and "sometimes" that would get the question tossed out of any professional polling script (though it would be commonplace in push polling). To many people, these two terms could mean the very same thing while others might read into it a difference in degree, precisely what Ballen and Al-Akhras are trying to do to make Americans seem more supportive of violence against civilians, which is why we must also remember that the question is one of justification, not support. The question is measuring something entirely different than what Ballen and Al-Akhras want it to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an awful objection. 80% of Iranians in that poll say 'never justified' and only 46% of Americans do. In the Pew project, 79% of Morrocan Muslims, 66% of Indonesian Muslims, 66% of Turkish Muslims, and 46% of Pakistani Muslims responded that attacks on civilians are 'never justified'. So it does seem that Americans are more supportive of these attacks than many Muslims.

It is also ridiculous to state that people don't know the difference between 'rarely' and 'sometimes'. Why would we suspect that Americans are misunderstanding this distinction but people in other countries are not? If you have four choices (often, sometimes, rarely, or never), it seems that you will understand that it is a graded difference.

[ QUOTE ]

Turns out GUIDSISRIGHT strikes again. I love facts, not spin. They added the word INTENTIONALLY which makes a great deal of difference imo, when they wrote the article. Iron, no need to apologize, just do me a favor, next time you decide to cite a poll or a statistic, get your information and wording directly from the source, not some christian scientist publication. K thx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you're wrong. They didn't add the word intentionally. Where was your source?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
If you see an eqivalency between strategic bombing during a declared action....

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a declared action? I seem to remember the Constitution authorizing Congrss to declare war, whom does it authorize to "declare action"?

[guids]

There is something fishy going on, either there were two studies going, or one side is intentionally misleading the other, or someone altered the questionaire. The link on from that article has q-123 as stated, w/ the word intentional. I shot off an email to the editor, and am going to do some more google searching to see if I cant find a cached version. If I am wrong I apologize iron.

[Taraz]

Check out borocay's post a few posts above, he links to the actual study report.

Edit: Here is a link to the World Public Opinion website. It has PDF downloads for both the questionnaire and the report.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...313&lb=brme

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
there is a subset of muslims that are sub-human

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
appealing to emotion is the worse thing to do when trying to formulate a strategy for peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been on quite a tear. See the irony?

Now I suppose you'll give an intellectualized justification for using the term "sub-human" and claim it is objective fact, no emotion involved.

Curious. Is Lt. William Calley still a human being?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something fishy going on, either there were two studies going, or one side is intentionally misleading the other, or someone altered the questionaire. The link on from that article has q-123 as stated, w/ the word intentional. I shot off an email to the editor, and am going to do some more google searching to see if I cant find a cached version. If I am wrong I apologize iron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind telling me what your source was?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *Islam*". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *America*? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the same standard, and it's not even the same question: the first poll question you cite above regards defending a RELIGION; the second question you list above regards defending a COUNTRY.

Try asking how many Americans would support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Christianity and I'd bet the answer would be far different. That would be the parallel to the question of how many Muslims support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Islam.

Also, Christians haven't been marching in the streets demanding the execution of those who have insulted Jesus, as throngs of Muslims did over the Mohammed cartoons. Apparently Christians aren't so fanatically motivated to defend their religion from perceived attacks or insults, as are Muslims.

In my opinion, the differences in religion and religious worldview are actually greater than most Americans think.

Also, I don't think "support for terrorism" is the most important question or even the real root question at all. I think the most basic issue is support for Shari'a.

Shari'a is deeply inimicable to modern Western values regarding equality before the law and various freedoms which we in the West generally treasure as essential. It doesn't have to b e "extreme" Shari'a, either, for it to be deeply antithetical to these values: good old regular run-of-the-mill-type Shari'a accomplishes that very effectively. Shari'a is acknowledged and considered authoritative by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. IMO Shari'a is the problem, and everyone who believes in Shari'a holds very different values from modern Western values. Shari'a values are not beneficial or desirable in any Western society. That doesn't make Shari'a believers bad people, just different people; and different in a way that is not really assimilable into Western society.

Wikipedia Shari'a

[Felix_Nietzsche]

This is the politics forum......not the freedom of speech forum. Better learn that quickly....

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

Then, as many have pointed out, Americans support terrorism as much as Muslims do. In any case, a plurality in every country besides Nigeria responded 'never justified'.

How can anyone justify the statement that Islam is the reason these people support terror?

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent seen anyone support a claim that a significant number of Americans support terrosism at all, much less "as much as Muslims"

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron did post a link to a study done, that backed up his statement. Id like to know the exact wording used when askeed questions, as I dont think (even if they do), youd get any americans to say they support terroris. The question asked if american supported attacks on civilians...imo....99% of americans are thinking of attacks on civilians in the context of war (collateral damage), and not direct civilian attacks (suicide bombers). A lot of people would say there is no difference, but they would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would be wrong? Why? What is it about terrorism that makes blowing up random civilians wrong, but state-sponsored conflict gets a pass for blowing up and specifically targetting innocent civilians?