Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

1 in 10 muslims would 'hide' a terrorist!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier

509 people might not represent the majority's opinion, but statistically there is a good chance that their sentiment is proportional to the whole's; that's how polls work. 10% might not seem like a lot until you consider how large a number you are dealing with. If there are only 2 million muslims in the UK then that is still some 200,000 muslims willing to shelter terrorists. That's a scary number.



That depends ... what 500 people did they call ... was it random? Were did they git the list of 500? If I were to call 500 people in Georgia ... 500 people in San Francisco ... or 500 people in New York city ... I could generate 3 different polls with the same questions that would most definitely have very different results. To push that as valid data is misleading.

There's also the matter of error accountability ... according to polling statistics I found it is generally accepted there is a 3% error margin rate based on 500 survey members. So that means somewhere between 7-13% of the population would "turn a blind eye" (70,000 to 130,000) and 83-89% would notify police of suspicious activity/behavior (830,000 to 890,000) ... that's a pretty wide ranging variable.

Polling 101

I agree almost any news poll or political poll is worthless. I don't think a sample of 500 would accurately represent the 125,000 people in my town versus an entire 1 million population spread across an entire region.

I still say even if we take this poll as proper/valid and a good representation of the muslim community ... why was the news report written from a negative perspective?

Why not write a headline "Over 860,000 Muslims Would Notify Police of a Possible Terrorist". Instead the headline says "1 in 10 Muslims Ignore Terror". Why choose to focus on what the poll showed to be the minority of the polled population?




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Hvitserk
i don't really see what demonizing has to do with racism

i suggest you look up the term racism in a dictionnary

Getting past the irony of telling me to look a word up in a "dictionnary"...I completely disagree with your contention.

Racism is literally the belief that race is the determinant for a certain trait or action.

Since we're hearing that muslims i.e. Middle Easterners are violent because they follow Islam, that is racism. That rationale implies that if I see a Middle Eastern man I should automatically assume he is violent because he is a muslim.

I dont see how you can fail to see the connection between "demonization", which is the process of bestowing a sense of evil on something (muslims), and "racism" which is believing race is a determinant for such evil.



a) muslims are not a race

b) there's only one human race


so you might be xenophobic or "only" islamophobic

coming back to the definition of racism here it is again :

"rac‧ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."


i've not seen anyone coming up with an idea of superiority/inferiority in this thread (so far) and even if anyone had come up with anything like he/she would be wrong as :
muslims are followers of islam , a belief/religion
muslims can be and are of most ethnic groups , caucasian, african , asians ...name it.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
The term "racism" is applicable here and I have not used it in error. If you require the standard definition for "race":


Merriam-Webster Online

race: 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics


If we stuck to your definition there would be no such thing as racism any more, what a Utopia!

But since Im not married to the use of the term "racism" to describe the flagrant ignorance being shown here against Muslims, how about I use the term "anti-semitism"? Anti-semitism is the prejudice against those of Middle Eastern decent. Any quibbles with that one? Infact, please dont bother as I couldnt think of anything more useless than a semantic argument.

[edit on 26/9/06 by subz]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by Hermann
Maybe you should stop analyzing every single word, you might get the idea of what is being said. See if you can twist that. Over and Out.

The thing is, we already know all to well what you're going to say, and exactly what you mean by it, before you even submit the post... and it's the same never-ending circle that you and those like you started at the beginning of the thread. You don't have any experience with Muslims... you've either met very few or none at and clearly don't have the cultural education to even sustain a solid argument for what you're saying. Others who do are totally in disagreement with you, INCLUDING a Christian who lived in Jordan. Why can't you accept that you're wrong? Is it that you don't WANT to believe it?

Anyways, I've been thinking about the 1 in 10 quote... what was the sample? Something like 500 or so? That is just one small poll and it's hardly solid evidence to construct any sort of realistic picture of what UK Muslims really think in regards to these issues.
Ok Ok so I don't agree with you, that must make me a racist then. Blah Blah, same old thing. Maybe I should be beheaded. On the whole I have had a few good experiences with Muslims, but then I have also watched them protest with banners demanding: "Behead infidels" and "accept Islam or die" and that wasn't really a good experience, demanding death on the drop of a hat because they get upset by somebody's comment. You can really think what you like about me.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The term "racism" is applicable here and I have not used it in error. If you require the standard definition for "race":


Merriam-Webster Online

race: 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics


If we stuck to your definition there would be no such thing as racism any more, what a Utopia!

But since Im not married to the use of the term "racism" to describe the flagrant ignorance being shown here against Muslims, how about I use the term "anti-semitism"? Anti-semitism is the prejudice against those of Middle Eastern decent. Any quibbles with that one? Infact, please dont bother as I couldnt think of anything more useless than a semantic argument.

[edit on 26/9/06 by subz]



well done/thought



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
if I knew of a Catholic on his way to blow up a known terrorist mosque, I'd say nothing too!


Then you would have become that which you hate.

Unless of course it was known for sure that the mosque was really in fact a terrorist meeting place and/or weapons cache. Then it becomes a military target that the GOVERNMENT should handle.

Either way .. if you just allowed a person to go into a mosque and blow it up simply becasue 10% of muslims sympathize with terrorists .. then you would become what you hate.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hermann
Ok Ok so I don't agree with you, that must make me a racist then.
I DARE you to find ONE post by me that calls you a racist. Go ahead... find it.

On the whole I have had a few good experiences with Muslims, but then I have also watched them protest with banners demanding: "Behead infidels" and "accept Islam or die" and that wasn't really a good experience, demanding death on the drop of a hat because they get upset by somebody's comment.
And then there are the Christians who organize anti-gay marches at American soldiers' funerals... blaming homosexuals for the soldiers' deaths.... the IRA bombers.... the witch-hunts... the KKK... the list goes on and on. Every religion has its own negative side and if you're going to be upset about the Islamicists then you should be upset with the hardcore Christian Right as well... there's really no valid reason for you to single out Islam as a violent religion and not the others.

BTW... have you ever looked up the word 'bigotry'?

[edit on 26-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by Hermann
Ok Ok so I don't agree with you, that must make me a racist then.
I DARE you to find ONE post by me that calls you a racist. Go ahead... find it.

On the whole I have had a few good experiences with Muslims, but then I have also watched them protest with banners demanding: "Behead infidels" and "accept Islam or die" and that wasn't really a good experience, demanding death on the drop of a hat because they get upset by somebody's comment.
And then there are the Christians who organize anti-gay marches at American soldiers' funerals... blaming homosexuals for the soldiers' deaths.... the IRA bombers.... the witch-hunts... the KKK... the list goes on and on. Every religion has its own negative side and if you're going to be upset about the Islamicists then you should be upset with the hardcore Christian Right as well... there's really no valid reason for you to single out Islam as a violent religion and not the others.

BTW... have you ever looked up the word 'bigotry'?

[edit on 26-9-2006 by firebat]
I didn't single out Islam as a violent religion, but we were talking about Muslims and not the whole worlds' religion. The minute I mentioned Islam you jumped down my throat. I totally agree with your views about the other religions.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Did it occur to anyone that this poll is kind of ridiculous?
Don't you think if they called up some muslims,
(Where they got a list is interesting enough)
But that if they asked them if they would hide a terrorist that they would ALL say NO for fear that the govornment is going to come search their homes or arrest them for treason? I'm pretty sure even if I was sympathetic to the cause, I'm not going to be flaunting that information about.

Just a thought.

-DT



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Thread title

1 in 10 muslims would 'hide' a terrorist!

Article title

One in 10 Muslims 'ignore terror'


Do I smell Spin?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
Thread title

1 in 10 muslims would 'hide' a terrorist!

Article title

One in 10 Muslims 'ignore terror'


Do I smell Spin?


Precisely.

Kinda like: "5 out of 10 Americans support President Bush" and "the other 5 out of 10 Americans support the enemy"

[edit on 26-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   


This topic is racist and should be closed, a true Muslim would not hide a terrorist as it would go against his beliefs so this topic should be 1 out of 10 people would hide a terrorist.


I am rather interested in this comment.

Is it not the case you should be classing the media i.e. Newpapers, Internet News, News Agencies with the same comments.

Or the People who carried out the poll in the first place.

It is obvious to me, the media and those who carried out this poll. Knew what reaction they would get to this. And it has played into their hands.

If your going to go for censorship. With askin for a thread to be closed down, because you believe it is racist. Maybe you should start with all the News Agencies and News Papers who instigated this in the first place. Just because everyone has different opinions on a certain topic does not make a thread racist, well not in my opinion it does not.




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I am going to say that Derek Trance is right, the poll is kind of ridiculous and in all fairness this thread is losing its point. Perhaps its just me and I am new to this site/forum but it appears we are going around in circles.

Face it guys, this thread is gone.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
flyboy, why aren't the US soldiers in darfur ?


no oil


That's amusing you picked a random country with no relevance and asked why the US (nor anyone else BTW) is there. NOTHING to do with oil, i can come up with a more plausible and likely explanation. The US is already in Kosovo, Afghanistan & Iraq, it's stretched as it is. Question is why hasn't anyone else gone to Darfur? Btw there is oil in Nigeria, perhaps minimal but i don't see the US attacking Nigeria for it. Also i don't remember oil being found in Kosovo (where countless Muslims had been butchered), yet the US led the NATO forces in operations there. You're clearly on the "oil bandwagon" because it's the thing to say and you don't really know the reason for why. Think for yourself, make up your own mind, don't follow the crowd.


Originally posted by INc2006
okay look first of all go to venezuela, it's much easier to fight in the desert than to fight in the jungle or the rain forest. as for siberia, if i'm a strategist, i don't think i'd be willing to fight in such weather, nor will i like seeing 30k nuclear warheads falling on my country from russia.


Probably a good thing you're not a strategist. First you cannot always be picky when it comes to what kind of climates you fight in. Hence why forces tend to train in all weather and climate conditions. If a situation arises in an area that is frozen over, then you have to go there, whether you'd rather it or not. Fighting in the desert just gives you as many headaches. Intense heat, freezing temperatures at night, sand clogging weapons and even the M1 Abrams' turbine engine, lack of water in certain areas. Not exactly paradise. Btw Russia would not fire nuclear weapons against the US, there is something called 'mutually assured destruction', which more or less guarantees that they wouldn't be used. The US has a much more effective and modern anti-nuclear deterrent than Russia.The fact that you mention no one would want to go to somewhere like Siberia, suggests that if someone took it, Russia may be hesistant in taking it back. As you're obviously not aware of, Canada is only second behind Saudi Arabia in terms of world oil production, will they be attacked heh?


1. why go toa country like Nigeria, you saw wat happened in Somalia, thousands of casualties. plus why go fora minimal ammount of Oil, when you can go for like the third largest oil deposit with relative ease(remember they didn't take into account insurgency after the initial war). as for Kosovo there are political reasons and "sphere of influence" reasons. the Balkans, which is where the Kosovo war occured, were mostly united into Yugoslavia under the soviet union, but then they split up and started fighting, now if the US let them go, then very easily there could come into power a new communist regime in the area that would be allied with Moscow, instead of washington. the Balkans are in a strategic position. plus if the US didn't go in, then it's political image can be permanently damaged! the US at the time was the new lone superpower of a new unipolar world, it had to go in. and as is said, is is not in the US interest to let any part of eastern europe fall back into the hands of the russians.

2. the russians have a very potent and impressive nuclear arsenal, largest one in the world with 30k nuclear warheads, and the new topol M which as said by russian military can pass through any missile defense system. also the russians also have a potent military, one of the largest, with more tanks than anybody else. plus logistics are very hard in a climate such as siberia. especially when your transporting goods across the bering sea. the Russian navy can cut your supply lines if you try that. also the russians would very well try to take siberia back, it is the resource rich part of russia. as for Canada, well it's complying just fine wiht the US, and second i think i once read they have a unified economic sphere or something like that. i think that's the NAFTA agreement or something. so no need for Canada to be invaded. plus Canada is part of NATO also, so if need be y war, Canada would comply with helping hte US. as for fighting in Venezuela, well in venezuela a war could end up like Vietnam, plus Vietnam has not been under siege and constant bombardment and economic sanctions for 12 years or so, and it can have a potent military. and btw if need be, nukes would be used....





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join