Below is a summary of actual survey results describing what Muslims opinions on terrorism and the like. It seems as though the 99.9% of Muslims don't support violence might be wrong.
There are more stats and links in the original story linked at the bottom.
Palestinian Areas. A poll in 2011
showed that 32% of Palestinians supported the brutal murder of five
Israeli family members, including a three-month-old baby. In 2009, a
poll showed that 78% of Palestinians had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. A 2013 poll
showed 40% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings and attacks
against civilians. 89% favored sharia law. Currently, 89% of
Palestinians support terror attacks on Israel.
Pakistan. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Gilani Foundation
did a poll of Pakistanis and found that 51% of them grieved for the
terrorist mastermind, with 44% of them stating that he was a martyr. In 2009,
26% of Pakistanis approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq. That number
was 29% for troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 76% of Pakistanis wanted
strict shariah law in every Islamic country.
Morocco. A 2009 poll showed
that 68% of Moroccans approved of terrorist attacks on US troops in
Iraq; 61% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan as of 2006.
76% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country.
Jordan. 72% of Jordanians backed terror attacks against US troops in Iraq as of 2009. In 2010, the terrorist group Hezbollah had a 55% approval rating; Hamas had a 60% approval rating.
Indonesia: In 2009, a poll
demonstrated that 26% of Indonesians approved of attacks on US troops
in Iraq; 22% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. 65% said
they agreed with Al Qaeda on pushing US troops out of the Middle East.
49% said they supported strict sharia law in every Islamic country. 70%
of Indonesians blamed 9/11 on the United States, Israel, someone else,
or didn’t know. Just 30% said Al Qaeda was responsible.
Egypt. As of 2009, 87% of Egyptians
said they agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in forcing the US to
withdraw forces from the Middle East. 65% said they wanted strict sharia
law in every Islamic country. As of that same date, 69% of Egyptians
said they had either positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden.
In 2010, 95% of Egyptians said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.
United States. A 2013 poll
from Pew showed that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against
civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. A 2011 poll from Pew
showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among
Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they
were either favorable toward Al Qaeda or didn’t know.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/
9 comments:
Don't know if Dan closed comments on his "Marrakesh Declaration" post, but in any case, he offered a stat regarding how many people believe bombing Hiroshima was a good idea. Something like 61% of Americans agree. To Dan, that's a greater indictment of Americans than the numbers you cite to rebut the myth of muslim opposition to terrorist acts.
I responded that it is a false equivalency given the circumstances at the time, and who it was that compelled us to take such drastic action. In short, we bombed a people that were not much different in their actions and the support of its people for such actions, as we're seeing with muslims polled about terrorism.
There is no comparison between the actions of muslim terrorists and the bombing of Hiroshima. Jihadists seek out any who are not identical in beliefs as they are, and that includes, even makes a priority of, civilians. Hiroshima was NOT a matter of specifically targeting civilians simply to murder Japanese civilians.
The moral relativism of the comparison is evil in itself.
I tried to post this over there but couldn't which leads me to conclude that Dan "I never, ever, ever, delete comments of ban people" T, has closed comments on that thread. The problem is that in the case of Hiroshima any current survey results impose a 2016 worldview on events that happened in 1945. This is much the same way you see people pull out the "It's just a bunch of bronze age superstition" when dismissing the Old Testament. Ultimately it's a bias in favor of a modern Eurocentric worldview. It's why he has so much trouble with the Bible, of course things don;t make sense when you look at them through a 21st century, theological/social liberal/anti-supernaturally biased lens.
It also rips the entire even out of context and ignores the facts that led up to the bombing. I went through this in a recent thread and Dan just pretended as if I hadn't said anything and just ignored the flaws in his construct.
The problem is that there is a desire to blame America and Christians for everything that is wrong, which leads to the excusing or minimizing of the actions of others that provide context.
I don't know what happened, but my comments did post and Dan's and he did trot out excuses.
"The moral relativism of the comparison is evil in itself."
I'm not sure I go as far as evil, but naive, simplistic, biased, absurd, are all adjectives I'd be fine with.
I hope you aren't fearful of using the term "evil" without some outrageous level of harm being perpetrated. The term might feel harsh, but I believe it is appropriate far more often than most are willing to admit. It is appropriate here due to the vast distinction between contexts of the two issues. Only an extremist would say that there is any comparison in the first place, and that extremism is too dangerous to tolerate.
I was watching a few videos featuring Ben Shapiro and he made a good point that basically rejects mincing words, as well as worrying about how opponents might feel by the use of appropriate terms. I say, give me your worst. If you can't support why you use particular terms to accuse me, I'll simply write it off as the rantings of a fool. Am I evil? Biased? Racist? Prove it, support the contention or expose yourself as foolish and childish for name calling.
Here, "evil" is exactly the word I meant to use because of the vast distinction between the two issues. If naivete, simple-mindedness, bias or absurdity play a role at all, "evil" will clear the air or force a clear explanation for why the lame comparison is appropriate.
No, I just think that there is a spectrum that ranges from evil to manipulated and that I don't want to lump everyone as evil. Having said that, certainly the actions being taken are evil. I also wouldn't suggest you not use the term.
I have pointed out multiple times that after 3 weeks, blogger does not automatically post new comments, but I have to approve them. Once I approve them, they go up.
"I have pointed out multiple times that after 3 weeks, blogger does not automatically post new comments, but I have to approve them. Once I approve them, they go up."
I guess you couldn't have bothered to read my comment where I pointed out that some of my comments did post.
As usual for you of late, it's easier to come in and bitch about a non issue that it is to offer some substantive comment.
sigh. Craig, you're reading everything through a bitter filter. I came merely to explain, not "bitch." In case you missed my earlier explanations.
You're welcome. And lighten up, friend.
Really, a "bitter filter", I quite clearly made the correction in an earlier comment. It's really true, you can scroll up and read it. But instead of reading the comment, (a common practice with you) you feel the need to make comments based on assumptions (again a common practice with you), and get bitchy (also common).
If you want to make any on topic comments fine, if not then you can do what you did at the thread at your blog and "give up".
Your call.
Post a Comment