Why the west should fear muslims

reply to post by operation mindcrime


What has he left out and what is his agenda?

What is your agenda?

Originally posted by Freeborn

What has he left out and what is his agenda?

Freeborn,

Spot the difference......it become pretty apparant when you find it!!!

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students and a member of the British Labour party which favors increased immigration from third world Muslim nations, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain”

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

What is your agenda?

Comprehending how this thread ever reached 93 flags!!!

Peace

All statistics are pretty much BS if they are used to gouge a demographic's opinion.

Sadly, the report by the respected YouGov market research firm, speaks for itself, in spite of any spin that either Wes Streeting or yourself try to put on the survey.

1. A third of British Muslim students back Killings in the name of Islam.

2. A third of British Muslim students want a Worldwide Islamic State.

3. 40% of Muslim students feel it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely.

4. 40% of British Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic Sharia codes into British law.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The above poll's findings were in accord with the Populus survey commissioned by Policy Exchange.

www.policyexchange.org.uk...

Still, if you don't like those two polls, how about another one?

According to a Populus poll for The Times

37 % of British Muslims believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”.

12% of all Muslims questioned thinks suicide bombings can sometimes be justified in Israel.

Only (only?) 7% of British Muslims (12% of Muslims aged 18 to 24) say that suicide bombings can be justified in the UK.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Leaving things out and putting things in where you see fit does not equate to the truth. No matter how much you would like it to be!!!!

I have supplied the results of 4 different surveys (with links), carried out by reputable market research firms, which have asked British/European Muslims about their attitudes.

You on the other hand have supplied no evidence to refute the surveys, responding the only way you can, with spin.

Why are you twisting and turning to ignore facts that don't fit with your agenda?

Peace

Originally posted by 547000
All statistics are pretty much BS if they are used to gouge a demographic's opinion.

Two points arise in respect of how well a sample statistically represents a larger population.

1. How representative of the larger population is the sample?

For instance, don't telephone people to ask how they will vote if many voters don't own phones.

2. Is the sample statistically significant? The minimum size of a sample is 30.

Hence, 632 people in a sample is very statistically significant, a fact that neither our own Operation Mindcrime nor Wes Streeting (the labour party politician who supports mass Muslim immigration into the UK) seems to be aware of.

To then criticize a respected poll organisation of 'asking vague and misleading questions, and then wilfully misinterpreting the answers', is quite simply grasping at straws.

In fact, its not just grasping at straws - it is clear evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
“Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

Some of the alleged 'misleading' and 'vague' questions and the categories of answers which were allegedly 'willfully misinterpreted', according to MindCrime, from the YouGov report...

How supportive if at all would you be of the official introduction of Shari’ah Law into British law for Muslims in Britain?

Very supportive
Fairly supportive
Not very supportive
Not at all supportive
Not sure

How supportive if at all would you be of the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Shari’ah Law?

Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?

Thinking more about respect for others…
How much respect do you have for atheists?
And what about homosexuals?

today.yougov.co.uk...

As can be clearly seen, rather than the questions being 'misleading' and 'vague' they are crystal clear.

The person answering them chooses one of the following categories:-

Very supportive
Fairly supportive
Not very supportive
Not at all supportive
Not sure

Which begs the question how it would be possible to willfully 'misinterpret' the answers?

Operation Mindcrime, you are clearly a man with an agenda.

How about you try reading a report first before you endorse a line of spin that is easily proved false by just looking at the report?

today.yougov.co.uk...

Peace

reply to post by ollncasino

ollncasino,

I am not talking about the statistics or the numbers or the research even....!!!

I am talking about the article which you are QUOTING....

I may be very much mistaken but quotes are most often used to strengthen the point the poster is trying to make. Putting a quote in your post shows that some statistic or expert is backing up what you claim (no matter how ridiculous).

I really do not care that you have been "quoting" your way through this thread. Page after page of "objective" articles that you have selected to convince us of your point.

Selective quoting is allowed, although often you will see the quote is not in-line with the context of the entire article, but a good manipulation strategy nonetheless.

But when you are allowing yourself the "artistic freedom" to add your own opinion inside that quote, well then their really is no use to quote any article. You can just rip a text from a site, add a little of your own spice and call it your opinion.

Point in case:

This is the original article

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

A third of Muslim students back killings

This is what you posted

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students and a member of the British Labour party which favors increased immigration from third world Muslim nations, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain”

Why the west should fear Muslims

Looking at the post this was in, you didn't even quote it, you just copied it and used it as your own. I am sorry for claiming that you are manipulating information to fit your agenda. You are simple ripping bits and pieces of text from websites and using them as your own...(after slight alteration).

Congratulations, you make denying ignorance way too easy!!!


Peace

Originally posted by ollncasino
Some of the alleged 'misleading' and 'vague' questions and the categories of answers which were allegedly 'willfully misinterpreted', according to MindCrime

Do you NOT see what you are doing?!?

Not according to me!!! According to the original article!!!

A third of Muslim students back killings

You are telling me that you are brainwashing yourself now!? Or is this a standard technique of discrediting people who are exposing you???

It is fun to witness, though.

Peace

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
But when you are allowing yourself the "artistic freedom" to add your own opinion inside that quote, well then their really is no use to quote any article.

You make a valid point. In the future I will make sure that any facts inserted by myself are clearly separated/identified from the body of any text I quote from.

Nonetheless, the information I inserted was 100% factually correct while the line of spin you rapidly endorsed, in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from the survey's finding, has been proven incorrect.

Still, now that we have established the fact that Muslim students were not (as you asserted)

"asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

but rather were asked clear questions with answers that were not open to misinterpretations, can we deal with the views expressed by Muslim students in the survey?

These were:-

Worldwide Islamic Caliphate (33% want it).

Sharia law (40% want it).

Killing in the name of Islam (33% think its ok).

Muslim men and women being allowed to associate (40% want to stop it)

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Most people would be quite worried about such a large proportion of British Muslim students having a range of views that were very much contrary to the values held by non-Muslim Britons.

You appear not to be.

In fact, you have shown yourself to be eager to endorse any line of spin, no matter how dishonest, if it serves to deflect attention from views held by a significant number of British Muslim students that are contrary to Western values.

Could we make an agreement?

If you stop spinning and deflecting, I agree to make sure the facts I introduce into my posts are clearly differentiated from any newspapers articles I cite?

Is it a deal?

Peace

reply to post by ollncasino

ollncasino,

Could we make an agreement?

If you stop spinning and deflecting, I agree to make sure the facts I introduce into my posts are clearly differentiated from any newspapers articles I cite?

Is it a deal?

I agree that if you stop cutting up newspaper articles to fit your argument, I will not bother you about it..

Best we'd part without any agreement, what you say??

Peace

To the OP: Don't get it twisted, your mindset is the same mindset that causes the fanatics and nutjobs (regardless of religion or race) to commit such heinous acts. You aren't pointing out the obvious, you are seeking out half-truths which fit your misguided agenda. Here's a tip: if you want change, be productive, even if it involves hate and evil. Nobody can respect a coward sitting behind a computer screen. Otherwise, just end this bull...or better yet, end yourself. Do the world a favor and take your friends with you.

reply to post by Acharya

I totally agree with you.we have much the same problems here in the uk.I noticed instantly the first two replies hit you with exactly what you said they would-''you're a racist & a bigot'',well i say bull****,you have spoke the truth.here we also have plenty of problems with eastern europeans and blacks especially coming up from the midlands in england and selling heroin & crack.I personally have been on the local housing list for 6 years and can't even get an offer never mind a house,yet the area were i grew up and still stay is like an advert for the U.N. with immigrants from the middle east etc coming here and getting housed instantly.how can this be right when people born here are living in overcrowed tiny high rise flats?[like myself].these people frequently flattly refuse to even share the lift in my block of flats with the scottish who stay here!they don't want to integrete for some reason-hell they aren't even civil to us their neighbours!yet we get called the racists etc.a good friend of mine a 2nd generation Bangledeshi muslim is the most racist person i know!he is always calling blacks the n word and frequently shortens Pakistani!I bet he also has a few choice names for us whites but doesn't say them to me.
great thread I love it!

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae


have you never heard of time zones?In the UK it happened about 1.30pm BST-he is in Holland so he could be right saying around 2pm they were dancing.

reply to post by ollncasino

Hey, ollncasino!

Yes, the questions ARE vague and misleading, and the conclusions drawn from it (by you or the articles, it is difficult to know anymore) are ALSO misleading.

Earlier, you said:

Originally posted by ollncasino
A third of British Muslim students back Killings in the name of Islam and desire the introduction of a Worldwide Islamic State

Then you quoted a text that said that the question was:
Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?
How supportive if at all would you be of the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Shari’ah Law?

These two are definitely not the same thing. I hope you are not so naive as to not see that. A murder could be caught and then possibly executed- this would be valid in the name of Islam. Anyone can kill someone and then say "I DO THIS IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!"- this is not valid.

And I'm not quite sure you realise what the word "Caliphate" means. Here is an online dictionary definition:
"The office or jurisdiction of a caliph. The last caliphate was held by Ottoman Turkish sultans until it was abolished by Kemal Atatürk". In case you haven't noticed, nothing about a "Worldwide Islamic State". I mean, is the Catholic Pope the leader of a "Worldwide Catholic State"? Even that comparison is not valid, because the function of a Caliph was never the same as that of a Pope...the Caliph wasn't the "Head of Islam", had no authority to make new rules, or bless people, or anything like that.

And what is up with the phrasing "How supportive would you be of.."? Do they mean supporting it's introduction? Or supporting it once it has been introduced? It definitely does not sound like it is asking if you'd actively pursue the introduction.

And especially considering the "degrees" allowed in the answer. For example: I personally would not really care for the introduction of a Worldwide Islamic Caliphate* (a Caliph accepted by all the muslims in the world), because of the potential for abuse of this position (as can be exemplified by the Ottoman Turkish Sultans in the definition). But would I actively oppose it? No. Would I support it? No. If it had already been introduced, I would actively seek to bring it down? No. I'd just shrug my shoulders and continue life as if it didn't exist. Would I support it? No.

To make a clearer example: A person who doesn't actively seek to have a caliph (or implementation of Shariah in the UK), but wouldn't mind if it existed would be categorised as "In support of". A person who would not oppose a Caliphate or the existence of Shariah in the UK (if they already existed), would also be counted in the "In support of" group.

And then you say (or the article says?) "75% of Young British Muslims would prefer Muslim women to "choose to wear the veil or hijab"" as if it is something bad. Would you rather that they prefer to force Muslim women?


And then again there are vaguenesses in the use of the word "Shariah". When you think of the word, you probably understand it as "the kind of laws they have in place in countries like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan". A muslim may understand it as "no nepotism, fairness, clear and explicit contracts about everything, etc". See, what countries like Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan have/had can't really be called Shariah, because they had loads and loads of stuff that was certainly not derived from Islam, and in many cases is in direct contradiction of it. No country in the world that claims to be "Islamic" and have Shariah has the same set of laws. I don't think you'd get a unified agreement of what "Shariah" entails from any muslims anywhere. Heck, in the Quran "Shariah" is used to mean "way" or "path" ("We put you on a way about the matter, so follow it, and do not follow the desires of those who do not know").


So yeah, I'd say they were vague and misleading.


*This is, of course, ignoring the fact that a Caliph accepted throughout the world would be impossible- why would the shias and sunnis agree on one? Even if we just made it "A Caliph accepted by the majority of muslims in the world", I'd say it'd still be impossible to get an agreement.

Originally posted by xiphias
To the OP: Don't get it twisted, your mindset is the same mindset that causes the fanatics and nutjobs (regardless of religion or race) to commit such heinous acts. You aren't pointing out the obvious, you are seeking out half-truths which fit your misguided agenda. Here's a tip: if you want change, be productive, even if it involves hate and evil. Nobody can respect a coward sitting behind a computer screen. Otherwise, just end this bull...or better yet, end yourself. Do the world a favor and take your friends with you.

edit on 16-9-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)

What an utterly disgusting post.

Islam is just as reasonable and peaceful as the old testament of the Christian Holy Bible.

Stop generalizing so much. Nothing is this world is black and white, there are always grey areas. The thing we need to keep in mind is there are going to be crazy, evil people EVERYWHERE, from all walks of life and all demographics. I personally know muslims, and they are just as reasonable and peaceful as many Baptists i've known in my day. For example, none of my muslim friends have ever threatened to burn a Holy Book, out of respect for other human beings. I cannot say the same for some of my baptist acquaintances.

I see ollncasino is still trying to spread his racist hatred by generalizing a whole people based on the actions of a minority.

Originally posted by teapotWhat an utterly disgusting post.

To me, the original post is beyond utterly disgusting. Why you decided to label my post as such is beyond me.

"Why the west should fear muslims" is probably along the same lines of Hitler saying, hypothetically, "Why Germany should fear Jews." Same goes for Osama bin Laden, hypothetically, "Why Islam should fear the West."

Fear only leads to more fear, and eventually to atrocity. The way I look at it, "Why X should fear Y" is what leads to genocide, terrorism, and war. Fear is the opiate of the masses, and it's also the tool psychos (Hitler, Osama, Saddam Hussein, and even George Bush...a lesser-psycho) use to further their own agenda.

Anyone who uses fear as a tool gets placed on the same page as all the notable psychos throughout history, in my book anyway.

Besides, anyone with half a wit can tell that this entire thread is driven out of a deep-seated hatred for Muslims. Just change the subject to: "I hate Muslims" and stop trying to hide your true nature. At least then we could respect your honesty.

P.S.
I'm not a Muslim and I'm not trying to defend anything but reason and logic.
We're all human, and I'm thoroughly convinced our petty existence on this planet is more important than our religious differences and our hypothetical reasons to fear one another.

reply to post by xiphias


The OP raises concerns about violent crime rates amongst immigrant populations who refuse to intergrate into their adopted western societies.

Spin it anyway you like, nowhere in that post did the OP advocate that anyone who disagree with him commit suicide or murder their friends.

Originally posted by teapotThe OP raises concerns about violent crime rates amongst immigrant populations who refuse to intergrate into their adopted western societies.

Spin it anyway you like, nowhere in that post did the OP advocate that anyone who disagree with him commit suicide or murder their friends.

I don't need to spin it...

"Islam is not a peaceful religion, it spreads seperation and hate."

All the spinning was done in the very first sentence. Every word written after that immediately earned my contempt, whether they're true or not. Sorry, maybe I was a bit brash, but anyone who thinks in generalizations like this is obviously dead inside.

Want to convince me to fear somebody? Show me unbiased facts. I honestly don't care about something you heard from your brother's friend's cousin's mailman in Sweden.

And is advocating suicide really all that much worse than advocating general fear of a group of people based on biased half-truths? This thinking is what leads to hate crimes. Besides, my comment was really more of a joke (although the world might be a better place if certain people actually followed through with it.)

Now if the OP had written "The Muslims in my neighborhood spread separation and hate," or "there are up to 49 non-western individuals in Oslo, Norway who we should look out for," that could've been worth defending.

The only concern here is the concern over having to look at a Muslim when you walk out the door. There isn't a single person writing stuff like this who is honestly concerned about another group of people successfully integrating into their society.

I know these types all too well. They get happy when they see the crime stats, and then they say "I told you so" with an evil grin on their face. Hate is their hobby. Segregation is their goal.

I don't care what religion you follow, what color your skin is, what language you speak, or what country you reside in: this type of thinking is the plague of our civilization; no question about it.

Here's the truth: the people who say any specific religion spreads separation and hate are actually the people who spread separation and hate. Their proof or sources are really just branches tied onto their idiot-tree.

Here's another truth: anyone who jumps from religion to crime to education (in that order) is a bigot in the making. They're just reaching for the rotten fruit on their idiot-tree.

And here's the last truth: a psycho is an idiot who didn't get body-checked the moment a stupid thought slipped out of his mouth.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm telling you to Get Real.