Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilanat]

Well it's apparent if you look at surveys where they separate out "support" from "somewhat positive". If you say do you support ISIS, you get a figure 5-6 times lower than if you say "are you 'somewhat positive' to ISIS" which is the figure they mostly want to tell you about.
http://bridge.georgetown.edu/do-42-million-muslims-really-support-isis/

According to an article by the Clarion Project, more than 8 million people in the Arab world “support” the group, and as many as 42 million express at least “somewhat positive” views.

So in this research they separated out the concept of support from "somewhat positive", "somewhat negative", "totally against" etc. Other studies just ask "are you more favorable to ISIS than not", and lump that all in as "supports ISIS". But from the Clarion research it's clear that almost all people who are "somewhat positive" about ISIS don't actually consider themselves ISIS supporters.

No, it's not apparent and i wouldn't call a propaganda organization funded by a Saudi prince a reliable source, but meh.

Their criticism isn't concerning the Pew research polls or any of the polls, it's just a poorly written specific criticism against an anti radical Islam organization. it doesn't address your statement, it doesn't provide alternative data and on top of things, it doesn't even support your assertion that by removing the "somewhat positive" answers you'd get less support percentages.

Regardless of that, i actually think we should see the 'somewhat positive" as ISIS supporters. this isn't a T.V show, it's a primitive, murderous, barbaric organization. anyone who isn't strongly against them is Humanity's enemy.

And the most frightening thing is that ISIS is just one of many radical Islamic organizations and regimes. if we add and remove duplicates for support for all of these, we get a frightening high figure of Muslims support for Radical Islamist terrorist organizations/regimes.

[Reelya]

Well then you have a problem, in that millions of Christians and Buddhists are also enemies of humanity for not expressing sufficient zeal against ISIS in the same survey data as you're using to condemn Muslims.

[smjjames]

Man China... everyday you keep seeming more and more insane to me... like your controlled by some sort of egomaniacal dictator who has no sense of reality and an over-inflated sense of national pride but without the temperance to understand how it must take place in the real world.

You could change 'China' to 'America', and it'd still almost fit. It's also really iffy if Tillerson would pass the committee vote, I have no idea whether he'd pass the Senate vote if the GOP decide to force it to the floor. He might still pass or he might not, he's the least likely to be confirmed atm.

I hope Trump has some plan B choice... nah, he's too confident in his choice.

[Vilanat]

Well then you have a problem, in that millions of Christians and Buddhists are also enemies of humanity for not expressing sufficient zeal against ISIS in the same survey data as you're using to condemn Muslims.

If they are somewhat positive toward ISIS, yes, they are Humanity's enemy. and we do have a problem because of that.

[Reelya]

There's also a fairness factor to keep in mind when third world countries are polled about their views on current events. Several of the countries with the highest levels of support for ISIS are also on lists such as "least access to electricity" and "least access to the internet"

In Nigeria and Bukino Faso, for example, two of the countries with very high polled favorability for ISIS, electricity is enjoyed by less than 15% of the population. Pakistan is a nation with excessively high polled support for ISIS, and they rank near the bottom worldwide for internet access (18% of the population).

So when asking why these people aren't sufficiently outraged about ISIS beheading videos and other goings on, well the vast majority of people in those countries have never even seen a TV news broadcast let alone seen ISIS beheading videos. Is it fair to demand a level of social consciousness to nations jammed full of people who have basically no media access whatsoever?

[hector13]

Well then you have a problem, in that millions of Christians and Buddhists are also enemies of humanity for not expressing sufficient zeal against ISIS in the same survey data as you're using to condemn Muslims.

If they are somewhat positive toward ISIS, yes, they are Humanity's enemy. and we do have a problem because of that.

What do you propose we do with humanity's enemies?

[Luke_The_Hungry]

Well then you have a problem, in that millions of Christians and Buddhists are also enemies of humanity for not expressing sufficient zeal against ISIS in the same survey data as you're using to condemn Muslims.

If they are somewhat positive toward ISIS, yes, they are Humanity's enemy. and we do have a problem because of that.

What do you propose we do with humanity's enemies?

Beheadings, obviously

[LoSboccacc]

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015


and this is why the average tells only a small small part of the story

[Reelya]

Well then you have a problem, in that millions of Christians and Buddhists are also enemies of humanity for not expressing sufficient zeal against ISIS in the same survey data as you're using to condemn Muslims.

If they are somewhat positive toward ISIS, yes, they are Humanity's enemy. and we do have a problem because of that.

What do you propose we do with humanity's enemies?

I propose we give them internet access so they can find out what's going on, so they aren't just filling in bullshit surveys about things they have no knowledge of. If you were to plot the data for ISIS support vs percentage access to internet, it's pretty clear from a quick skim that it's fairly strongly negatively correlated. So rather than being monsters, the "meh ISIS is OK I guess" people in the third world are just completely uninformed. Most of these people don't have televisions, computers, iPhones, or probably reliable daily newspapers either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users
http://metrocosm.com/support-isis-muslim-world-perceptions-vs-reality/

[hector13]

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015


and this is why the average tells only a small small part of the story

What's your point here?

[Reelya]

From that link:

Well you can see that out of 45 years there were 5 years in which Muslims killed more people in terror attacks than non-muslims. Those years were associated with Al Qaeda 2004-2005 (when Iraq was invaded) and ISIS (2015-2016). Basically both are blamable on Bush's War on Terror. Without that, none of this would have happened. More "War on Terror" is not the answer to the problem.

But look at the raw numbers. You might save 100 lives a year in Europe by going full Nazi-Germany surveillance state - assuming they catch them (and assuming nothing else bad happens because of that). The death rate for Europe is 1% or about 5 million a year for 500 million Europeans. 100 is not even 1% of 1% of the number of Europeans who die per year. Then look at the amount of money they spend on police state powers to "protect" you from the 100 deaths a year vs e.g. funding increases for hospitals and public safety campaigns, which tend to be much more paltry.

[smjjames]

From that link:

Well you can see that out of 45 years there were 5 years in which Muslims killed more people in terror attacks than non-muslims. Those years were associated with Al Qaeda 2004-2005 (when Iraq was invaded) and ISIS (2015-2016). Basically both are blamable on Bush's War on Terror. Without that, none of this would have happened. More "War on Terror" is not the answer to the problem.

But look at the raw numbers. You might save 100 lives a year in Europe by going full Nazi-Germany surveillance state - assuming they catch them. But the loss of freedoms would happen anyway. The death rate for Europe is 1% or about 5 million a year for 500 million Europeans. So, any policy that would seek to minimize the 100 death / year in Europe from terrorists, what are it's costs in terms of basic freedoms for the 500 million people who live in Europe? And what about the 5 million people a year who die from other causes? There are definitely policies they could be doing that would save more lives at less cost than the billions they spend on surveillance and extra police powers.

Notice anything missing from that graph?

Hint: Look at 2001.

EDOOOT: Western Europe, not 'World'.

[smjjames]

Western Europe.

Yeah, I just EDOOOT'd myself.

[Vilanat]

There's also a fairness factor to keep in mind when third world countries are polled about their views on current events. Several of the countries with the highest levels of support for ISIS are also on lists such as "least access to electricity" and "least access to the internet"

In Nigeria and Bukino Faso, for example, two of the countries with very high polled favorability for ISIS, electricity is enjoyed by less than 15% of the population. Pakistan is a nation with excessively high polled support for ISIS, and they rank near the bottom worldwide for internet access (18% of the population).

So when asking why these people aren't sufficiently outraged about ISIS beheading videos and other goings on, well the vast majority of people in those countries have never even seen a TV news broadcast let alone seen ISIS beheading videos. Is it fair to demand a level of social consciousness to nations jammed full of people who have basically no media access whatsoever?

There was a "Dont know" option. but, i agree that the issue of internet access is problematic and that's why Buddhists and Christians support of ISIS in these places is less of a concern (Although you can't really compare Nigeria to Burkina Faso). the problem is that Muslims do get some information about ISIS or other Radical terrorists organizations, only they get it through other channels like their Imams in mosques. it doesn't matter which information they'd get access to online, their Imam comes first.

As for you question, i honestly don't know. on one hand, yeah, these people don't know how ISIS behave, on the other hand, these people, as poor as they might be, might actually indirectly fund ISIS through giving zakat to a pro-ISIS mosque, maybe even while knowing the mosque supports ISIS. ignorance can very rarely justify criminality.

As for Hector's question: If after they are being presented with all the facts and information they still support ISIS, i don't see any reason to let any of these set foot on Western soil. if they financially support ISIS, we should take financial measures against them. if they actively support ISIS through other means, like giving shelter to operatives or engaging in their propaganda effort, they should be arrested. if they ever fought for ISIS, they should be put down.
The problem is we don't know who is who and finding out means giving tremendous powers to spying schemes that could be turned against us sometime in the future.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Imams in places without electrification probably don't have much better information than anybody else. There's assuredly a great deal of people far from the war who's only information about ISIS is that they're a group who fights against Westerners and their allies who are killing Muslims, a statement that is technically even true. Only an idiot lies in their propaganda, the real deal is reframing everything in your favor. And if some of your money ends up in their hands through a chain of mosques, you aren't supporting genocide and sex slavery, you're supporting protecting innocent lives. Burying the details like this is an established art, and it gets unbelievably easier if there's nobody to contradict you.