How many of those that subscribe to Islam support terrorism?

[Red Door]

I'm not saying we've done perfectly in Iraq - obviously we haven't. But your solution is, as far as I can tell, "stop fighting because we'll just make it worse". That's nonsense - you win a war by fighting smarter than the enemy, not by throwing up your hands, and going home to huddle in a foxhole and hope the big bad enemy doesn't come and kill you.

But in this case, the "Big Bad Enemy" can't kill us at home. They're stuck in their s***hole called Iraq. With US troops in Iraq, other Arab Extremists get even more angry and are more willing to kill US citizens at home to achieve their "objectives." If we leave, they can consider it a victory, but we can strike back at them where it really hurts, economically.

 

[theimmortal1]

My guess would be around 90 percent of them would join the global Jihad if the situation was right. However, I believe a good chunk of that 90 percent isn't actively supporting the current Islamist extremist movement. Perhaps they are even against it. Although once the war takes a more serious turn, which it has been, those moderates are going to get pulled in.

Currently I'd say 50 percent of Islamists in the Middle East and other Islamic strongholds actively support the movement. This means they are either fighting, aiding, or hoping that the movement prevails.

Islamists in the West are a different story. I'd say the vast vast majority would side with the West when all the chips were down...especially in the more 'economically free' countries.

 

[Elrohir]

But in this case, the "Big Bad Enemy" can't kill us at home. They're stuck in their s***hole called Iraq. With US troops in Iraq, other Arab Extremists get even more angry and are more willing to kill US citizens at home to achieve their "objectives." If we leave, they can consider it a victory, but we can strike back at them where it really hurts, economically.

Tell that to those who died on 9/11.

 

[Winner]

Haha, lol @ Pew Global.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. She is one of the biggest Islamaphobes ever, and she said that she found the death of HALF A MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN to be justified. There were many rallies and protests that were organized to PROTEST her visiting university campuses because of her anti-Muslim views.

That's why she personaly intervened on behalf of Bosnian Muslims or Kosovar Albanian Muslims, oh right

BTW, she's a Czech, so she has given many interviews here in Czech Rep. and from what I've seen, she is a very resonable woman.

If you wan't do dismiss facts only because she's present, it is obvious what your real reasons are.

And indeed, this group is known for its bias against Muslims. Your citing THIS as a source is like citing Daniel Pipes as a source against Muslims, or David Duke against blacks.

At least I have some hard evidence in my hand.

Anyway, your behaviour is very consistent with anneshm description of of an average discussion with a Muslim...

I think it's fairly obvious that Bush went to war for many reasons of which oil is a primary consideration. I think Crusading against a Muslim country was another.

Nobody is crusading, I can assure you. If we wanted to do a Crusade to destroy the Muslim world, we'd just nuke Mecca and other Muslim capitals and then, we would invade and occupy entire Middle East.

You seem to grossly underestimate the power of the West and misjudge its intentions.

 

[REDY]

"Nobody is crusading, I can assure you. If we wanted to do a Crusade to destroy the Muslim world, we'd just nuke Mecca and other Muslim capitals and then, we would invade and occupy entire Middle East.[/I]

Hmm its something like that if North Korea want invade South, they will nuke them. Logics somewhere run away. And you are using this argument too much.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Funny how you leftists have nothing, but complete faith in polls when it goes the way you want it to. I guess we cannot honestly say whether Bush's approval rating is really in the 20s and 30s since we haven't "interviewed every [American] out there."

Excuse me? This leftie always has distrusted polls no matter what the subject. Distrust, not dismiss. It seems this rightie is generalising a tad no? You don't have to poll every american, you have to poll a sizable group, spread out over many different social circles, neutral poll questions and somehow take into account response- and non-response bias. Conducting a good poll is not that simple. And too many times I have seen huge errors in them and in the people analysing them. Just browse this thread.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Poll results are affected by which subgroup you choose to poll. For example, you wouldn't go to an anti-abortion rally to see how many Americans are for/against abortion.

Most of these polls are designed by Islamaphobes who want the results to show Muslims in a negative light. (Otherwise, why would they be doing them anyways?) It is a very simple matter to make the results biased: just poll people who are a part of radicalized political groups.

I have a hard time believing ANY of these polls, because I have known a LOT of Muslims in my life--unlike many of you who just guess and hate without knowing--and NONE of them believe in terrorism. And I have known hundreds if not thousands of Muslims in my life.

But go ahead and hate-monger if that's what makes you happy and if that's what you think is a moral thing to do.

You might not have noticed my post earlier in this thread but I will repeat (and enhance) what I said.
Channel 4 carried out a survey of Muslims in April 2006 and gave their results in the attached pdf file
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site Download.pdf
And here is a summary of the results.
http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=412

Channel 4 is a well respected TV channel here in Britain with leftists and liberals ideals (ie not a Fox) even if what they do is sometimes controversial.
The survey was carried out by NOP, another well respected professional polling company that lives and survives by its fairness. You can see on page 3 of the pdf the method and sampling they used (random digital dialling) on 1000 Muslims in Britain. I, for one, am satisfied the results will be accurate to within a few percentage points. Tell me why you won’t accept them.

And then go to page 34 of the pdf and see the relevant question:
“To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror.”
I will just remind you that on 7/7/5 six Muslims carried out suicide bombings in London killing 52 innocent people (including Muslims). On 21/7 a further (and completely separate) gang of 6 carried out another similar bombing attempt in London, but fortunately the bombs did not go off.

With that knowledge, the question looks very fair and non-controversial to me. NB – This survey was after the event (when we had all seen the horror caused) and not some big-mouth sounding off before hand, not appreciating what such bombs could do.

Results: 11% Strongly agree and a further11% tend to agree, with an astonishing 17% “Do not know” – I mean how can anyone not know a simple question like that?
I make that some 400,000 Muslims in Britain (out of 1.8m) who supported the murder of 52 fellow Britons (including some Muslims!).
That is not a small minority, it is what you call a huge minority. It’s the size of a fair sized town for heaven’s sake.

And I would like to bet that if we did a poll of, say, British Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians etc. etc. then you would get the figures you talk of - the likes of 0.22% in stead of 22%.

My question for you and other Muslim apologists:
Why do you hide your head in the sand as to what is going on in the name of Islam?
Why do you try to pretend this is a tiny minority of extremists when it is plainly not – it is a large minority.
Why don’t these unhappy Muslims go to London to demonstrate about Iraq/racism/jobs/whatever instead of going to London to murder innocent people?

Now I suspect that living in America hides you from what is going on in Britain and other European countries, and indeed the world at large; but you cannot continue to wear those blinkers and just ignore all the facts.

I remind you – another 12 (or so) Muslims were arrested here last year planning to blow up aeroplanes. And five were arrested last week in Manchester.
And even today, as I write, another 8 have been arrested under the Terrorism Act in Birmingham. (This follows on from those revelations a couple of weeks ago on Channel 4 regarding the preaching of hatred in Mosques in Birmingham. I wonder if by any chance the two are related?)

All innocent until proved guilty of course, but still…

And also please note – We Britons do not hate Muslims like you say; but we do hate Muslims that want to kill us. And the latter are doing Islam no good what so ever. And the moderate Muslim majority are also doing Islam no good either by pretending there is nothing going on and finding excuse after excuse for your terror supporting minority.

 

[Winner]

"Nobody is crusading, I can assure you. If we wanted to do a Crusade to destroy the Muslim world, we'd just nuke Mecca and other Muslim capitals and then, we would invade and occupy entire Middle East.[/I]

Hmm its something like that if North Korea want invade South, they will nuke them. Logics somewhere run away. And you are using this argument too much.

Read what I write.

I said that if the West wanted to subdue the Muslim world, or destroy Islam, it would have done that already.

 

[Elrohir]

"Nobody is crusading, I can assure you. If we wanted to do a Crusade to destroy the Muslim world, we'd just nuke Mecca and other Muslim capitals and then, we would invade and occupy entire Middle East.[/I]

Hmm its something like that if North Korea want invade South, they will nuke them. Logics somewhere run away. And you are using this argument too much.

That's a terrible comparison. North Korea's nukes would probably fizzle in the air and fall onto some poor farmers rice paddies, while their tanks broke down and their troops were slaughtered and captured by the better trained, better equipped American and South Korean soldiers.

Our nukes, on the other hand, would work. I think using nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be a terrible mistake, but that's hardly the same as us being unable to do so.

 

[REDY]

Read what I write.

I said that if the West wanted to subdue the Muslim world, or destroy Islam, it would have done that already.

I read it twice times after your ask and I still understand nothing more then you used as argument total irrational sick thinking. Its not because Israeli governemt want Palestines alive, ho proved many times before that their goals are different. But its because no every jew, muslim and christian living in west is thinking same as Israeli governemt so it has to be gradual. Every war has to be justified by some reasons, lie or truth...destroyed cities like Mecca within reasons cant be justified even by lies, nobody will trust. The Iraq was more debatable, only people who had more knowledge should oppose..

 

[REDY]

That's a terrible comparison. North Korea's nukes would probably fizzle in the air and fall onto some poor farmers rice paddies, while their tanks broke down and their troops were slaughtered and captured by the better trained, better equipped American and South Korean soldiers.

Our nukes, on the other hand, would work. I think using nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be a terrible mistake, but that's hardly the same as us being unable to do so.

North Korea has very dangerous army. However you should laugh, I hope.

 

[Winner]

North Korea has very dangerous army. However you should laugh, I hope.

What?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Tell that to those who died on 9/11.

Neither Iraq nor any Iraqi had anything to do with 9/11. Turn off Fox News.

 

[Elrohir]

North Korea has very dangerous army. However you should laugh, I hope.

North Korea has a dangerous army? Since when?

Neither Iraq nor any Iraqi had anything to do with 9/11. Turn off Fox News.

The Iraqi government did not help Al Qaeda plan or carry out 9/11, that is true, and I never said that they did. Al Costa's point was that the "Big Bag Enemy" we are fighting now (Terrorists) can't hurt us at home - my point was that terrorists can, and have. Whether we are talking about the same exact organizations is irrelevant, (Although we are indeed fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq) the threat of Islamic terror remains.

 

[REDY]

North Korea has a dangerous army? Since when?

Since 1953. 5th largest in the world, equiped by Soviet Union. 2x larger airforce and troops than South neighbour. Tanks, artellery, submarines... Second largest special operation forces, many bunkers. I dont want be in South Korea if they decide to attack.

 

[Elrohir]

Since 1953. 5th largest in the world, equiped by Soviet Union. 2x larger airforce and troops than South neighbour. Tanks, artellery, submarines... Second largest special operation forces, many bunkers. I dont want be in South Korea if they decide to attack.

And before the Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army - and America and our allies ripped it to shreds like it was tissue paper. Their soldiers are farming. Farming, because the government can't afford to give them enough food to eat without them supplying some of it. Their missiles fizzle in the air, and their "nuclear weapons" don't work properly. And let's not even get into the amount of ammunition and fuel reserves they have.

The North Koreans could cause a lot of trouble - most notably by using their artillery to shell Seoul - but they would still lose. Could they kill a lot of innocent people and start a big war? Sure. Could they win? No way, the proposition is laughable.

You don't know much about the military, be it US or NK, do you?

 

[Bill3000]

This thread should have never been started.

 

[REDY]

And before the Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army - and America and our allies ripped it to shreds like it was tissue paper.

But Iraq wasnt prepared that will be attacked from foreign countries because Kuwait. They lost majority of weapons and manpower in long war with Iran. Their tanks and rockets number was impressive, but leadership was bad. Iraqi airforce hadnt chance, its deciding wars todays.

Their soldiers are farming. Farming, because the government can't afford to give them enough food to eat without them supplying some of it. Their missiles fizzle in the air, and their "nuclear weapons" don't work properly. And let's not even get into the amount of ammunition and fuel reserves they have.

Of course. But the French nuclear tests in Polynesia are also laughable.

The North Koreans could cause a lot of trouble - most notably by using their artillery to shell Seoul - but they would still lose. Could they kill a lot of innocent people and start a big war? Sure. Could they win? No way, the proposition is laughable.

I never told they should invade USA. But USA should have not confidence in war with NK.

You don't know much about the military, be it US or NK, do you?

I know only that their equipment and number is impressive.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Salah-Al-Din

You (and others) have still not answered either of my posts on this thread – see post #107.

By not answering me are you not confirming one of the main points I was making – that moderate Muslims hide their heads in the sand and refuse to believe the facts presented before them – that there are many extremist Muslims within their midst, and not the tiny minority you maintain.

Of course I appreciate you are damned if you answer and damned if you don’t…

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You have not responded to my post about polls. Can I draw the same conclusions about that, in the same way you do?