The BBC article comically titled the article as 'Most British Muslims 'oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals' ... 1) How was the slaughter of cartoonists and editors a reprisal? 2) Who would word the article that way when the jarring statistic shows a significant number of British Muslims are sympathetic to a terrorist attack over free speech? If 40% of American Christians sympathized with abortion doctor George Tiller's assassin, would the BBC or any other Left-wing rag title an article ignoring the real headline? Other than that, it's a pretty interesting statistic that only 62% of British Muslims said they opposed the murder spree targeting cartoonists. Wonder how many 'moderates' merely want the state to inflict the punishment of death/imprisonment on the cartoonists? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31293196
BBC Journalist & left-winged bias, Muslim extremists, pro EU membership, anti-Israel & anti-American.... I can't tell the difference. If I had my choice the BBC would loose all their funding (other than voluntary) BBC = biased media.
Well, there are lots of muslems here in the west with anti-Western opinions, and the fact you never hear the moderated muslems whenever Islamics did something, tells me this breed is just plain and evil. Islam= peace? http://germanicrealm.freeforums.org...ts-egypt-s-st-catherine-s-monastery-t647.html
more evil than christianity? think of all the millions killed by pagan christians. 30 million in WW1&2 alone. A mighty hunter on the earth the bible calls them- Romans 9:13, go and look if you dont believe me.
That post makes no sense. "millions killed by pagan Christians"? What does that mean? And Romans 9:13: 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. What is this "mighty hunter"? Do you mean Genesis 10?
It is somewhat odd because the survey never actually asked that question. It's not clear what or who the headline is quoting. It's not an unreasonable inference from the overall results though. Having "some sympathy with their motives" is a long way from supporting the murders, proven by the fact a greater proportion responded that violence is never justified in such cases. There is an underlying issue here with a significant proportion of the Muslim population but it's nothing like as simple or straight forward as you'd like to imagine and this somewhat scrappy and inconsistent poll doesn't offer a lot of relevant details. How do you know they don't? (Also, why have you jumped from the 27% in the survey to 40% in your hypothetical comparison?)
And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
We don't have a poll telling us a significant % of American Christians sympathize with George Tiller's killer, so I couldn't say one way or the other. As far as your question, it was a hypothetical example, as you said, so that explains why I chose a random random number less than 50. The poll also showed only 62% have no sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo attacks; 27% sympathize and 10% refused to answer or were undecided. But it is interesting you didn't address how the media/public would react to a poll showing similar % of American Christian sympathy for abortion attacks.
Again, the question wasn't whether they sympathised with the attacks, it was whether they had some sympathy with the motives. It's not a comparable situation. If loads of people had been pushing the idea that most Christians support murdering doctors who perform abortions, the reporting of such a survey could well be presented in the same manner. Headlines usually contain spin on the story though, regardless of any political lean (real or imagined). That's how the hacks draw you in to read it. That's why you chose the different "headline" for your thread after all. It's most constructive to ignore headlines (indeed, often much of the body too) and focus on the actual facts. At least the BBC linked to the primary source, something many media organisations (quite intentionally) don't.
There were polls that said around 50% of Conservatives believe that Obama is a Kenyan Born Muslim. Does that mean that all conservatives are ignorant xenophobes?
Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean they are terrorists. I sympathise with them too. Of course, when Americans gun down a Muslim, its on the news for less than an hour. When Muslims gun down a couple Frenchies, it goes world wide. Why oh why is this world a piece of crap. God Save Us. - - - Updated - - - If anyone had a sense of humour, theyd say yes. But no, of course that is not true. It means 50% of Conservatives are ignorant xenophobes.
Distinction without difference. I'm curious how you've determined the situations are not comparable. There's so much to unpack from this quaint comment that I'll start at the beginning. On what are you basing your belief that loads of people are pushing the belief most Muslims support murdering journalists/cartoonists over cartoons? And if a poll revealed only 62% of Christians have no sympathy for the motives of abortion killers I'd wonder how media would pick up such a statistic.
Feel free posting these stories. I'm interested how the media chose to report the statistics. You're probably making my point for me. (I'm guessing the headline emphasized the % believing the conspiracy theory rather than highlighting that most reject the conspiracy theory) Grist for my mill.
So if someone commits an atrocity on the basis of something you agree with, you'd be automatically supporting the atrocity too? This isn't just about Muslims (unless you're proposing that they're some kind of special case). The idea that anyone is incapable of sympathising with a motive while fundamentally objecting to an extreme act is ridiculous. Threads like this, survey questions like this, talking to people. It's not an uncommon theme in this kind of discussion.
Yes; I'd say you're splitting hairs trying to distinguish 'sympathy for the motives of the attacks' and 'sympathy for the attacks'. So a news story that actually did not report the % of Muslims showing sympathy for the motives of a terror attack is an example you wish to cite that loads of people are pushing the belief that most Muslims support militant violence in the name of their religion? Or this thread you cited where the majority views of Muslims is no where discussed? Or you claiming - by contrast - that there aren't loads of people pushing the view that a majority of American Christians/conservatives aren't violent when at least one clown on this thread seems to have actually made this claim? Not only have you been unable to establish your belief, but you've managed to cite one example actually contradicting your view. I also have to question your reasoning. So media should tailor their stories to (re)shape supposed public opinion?
