Warren Dew wrote:This isn't a good comparison to Scot Duchy's statistic, though. Scot Duchy's statistic was about whether suicide attacks against civilians were justified in Britain; the U.S. statistic is about whether suicide attacks were justified generally. I think it's quite likely that those in the U.S. who think suicide attacks might be justified are thinking about suicide attacks by palestinians in Israel, not in the U.S. - there are plenty of people who think the former are justified while the latter are not.

What is it with this thread and people replying without reading what they are replying to?

I marked the sentences of direct comparison in red, they relate to the same survey question.

Thommo wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:This isn't a good comparison to Scot Duchy's statistic, though. Scot Duchy's statistic was about whether suicide attacks against civilians were justified in Britain; the U.S. statistic is about whether suicide attacks were justified generally. I think it's quite likely that those in the U.S. who think suicide attacks might be justified are thinking about suicide attacks by palestinians in Israel, not in the U.S. - there are plenty of people who think the former are justified while the latter are not.

What is it with this thread and people replying without reading what they are replying to?

I marked the sentences of direct comparison in red, they relate to the same survey question.

Neither of which is Scot Duchy's statistic, which is the one the mouse was discussing.

Warren Dew wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:This isn't a good comparison to Scot Duchy's statistic, though. Scot Duchy's statistic was about whether suicide attacks against civilians were justified in Britain; the U.S. statistic is about whether suicide attacks were justified generally. I think it's quite likely that those in the U.S. who think suicide attacks might be justified are thinking about suicide attacks by palestinians in Israel, not in the U.S. - there are plenty of people who think the former are justified while the latter are not.

What is it with this thread and people replying without reading what they are replying to?

I marked the sentences of direct comparison in red, they relate to the same survey question.

Neither of which is Scot Duchy's statistic, which is the one the mouse was discussing.

Well, no, here's what (s)he wrote:-

the mouse wrote:Well it looks like Britain has a problem with some of it's immigrant Islamic population. They should probably get around to resolving it. I'm happy to say I'm from the US, where we don't have the same problems the european nations have with assimilating their immigrant populations. Perhaps the British can learn a good deal from us yanks here.

Which did not rely on that claim and anyway did not carry the burden of proof stemming from its positive claims (since no point of comparison was provided).

If you want to assert that there's an important difference in attitudes among Muslims about attacks within particular countries as opposed to attacks in non specific locations, that also has a burden of proof.

What I did show was that even a cursory evaluation actually sheds considerable doubt on the positive claim that America is a shining beacon for the backwards Europeans to learn from.

I think a large proportional of the most radical Muslims in the UK are British born. Most Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani origin, with significant numbers of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslims. That will have an effect on the figures.

Thommo wrote:

the mouse wrote:Well it looks like Britain has a problem with some of it's immigrant Islamic population. They should probably get around to resolving it. I'm happy to say I'm from the US, where we don't have the same problems the european nations have with assimilating their immigrant populations. Perhaps the British can learn a good deal from us yanks here.

Which did not rely on that claim and anyway did not carry the burden of proof stemming from its positive claims (since no point of comparison was provided).

The first quoted sentence or two from the mouse seems to me clearly supported by the statistics cited by Scot Duchy. If 25% of a substantial minority thinks that domestic terrorist attacks are justified, and 12% think they are justified when targeting civilians, the country has a problem, and should probably take action to resolve it.

The claim that the U.S. is different has been neither supported nor refuted. That the U.S. and Britain are similar in other ways, as your statistics suggest, is largely irrelevant: it says little or nothing about support for domestic terrorism.

Briton wrote:I think a large proportional of the most radical Muslims in the UK are British born. Most Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani origin, with significant numbers of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslims. That will have an effect on the figures.

Yes. American muslims have more diverse backgrounds, which might account for some difference in opinion. Then again the plurality of American immigrant muslims are from the middle east and north Africa, so they wouldn't necessarily be expected to have a smaller percentage of extremists.

Warren Dew wrote:The first quoted sentence or two from the mouse seems to me clearly supported by the statistics cited by Scot Duchy. If 25% of a substantial minority thinks that domestic terrorist attacks are justified, and 12% think they are justified when targeting civilians, the country has a problem, and should probably take action to resolve it.

The claim that the U.S. is different has been neither supported nor refuted. That the U.S. and Britain are similar in other ways, as your statistics suggest, is largely irrelevant: it says little or nothing about support for domestic terrorism.

Your support for unevidenced American exceptionalism is noted.

Thommo wrote:
Elements of them surely do both where I live and where you live, despite your attempt to insinuate you lived in an exceptional country. I've already touched on the alarming level of forced marriage, support for honour killings, support for the view that women should be forced to obey their husbands and so on, all of these things are real threats, many of them to Muslims, who deserve better.

You've touched on the alarming levels in your own country. The only thing you've cited for muslims views in my own country are their views of suicide bombing for non-specific aims, which failed to even register for me as even an issue worth addressing, or applying our resources to combat. If you had stats showing that a large percentage of american muslims support honor killings, etc... that this might give me a reason for concern. But as of now there's a severe lack of evidence that american muslims beliefs are a problem, so I don't see why I should imagine a threat for which there's little to no evidence for here?

And as a south asian american christian, our communities are so integrated that many of friends and family belong to the greater muslim population, so the american muslim is not some mysterious Other, a stranger to us, but those we often recognize as friends, as part of our immigrant family with shared values and experiences. They pose as much of a threat to our society as a I do, and perhaps even less so than certain white ultra conservative elements. Even among the crazies in the US who have a fear of anything muslim, they often have to resort to videos showing whats going on over their across the pond, to trump up support.

Many of these issues expressly rely on doctrinal and textual claims and are intrinsically linked with Islamic identity in the minds of the believer, I firmly believe that we cannot simply ignore the link between Islam and these practices and no amount of spurious statistics will change that view.

So are all verses in islamic scripture linked to the Islamic Identity? Is there one single Islamic identity, or a multitude of Islamic identities?

Are all verses of the bible linked intrinsically to the Christian Identity? What exactly is the Christian identity? One that more resembles gun toting conservative evangelicals, or the Mennonites?

Is there such a thing as an atheistic identity?

the mouse wrote:They pose as much of a threat to our society as a I do, and perhaps even less so than certain white ultra conservative elements.

Highly unlikely, given there have been recent instances of religiously motivated terrorism by muslims such as the Boston marathon bombing and the Fort Hood shooting, and none of similar events why "white ultra conservative elements". If there's anything more exaggerated than the fear of muslim extremism in the U.S., it's the fear of white ultra conservatives.

Warren Dew wrote:

the mouse wrote:They pose as much of a threat to our society as a I do, and perhaps even less so than certain white ultra conservative elements.

Highly unlikely, given there have been recent instances of religiously motivated terrorism by muslims such as the Boston marathon bombing and the Fort Hood shooting, and none of similar events why "white ultra conservative elements". If there's anything more exaggerated than the fear of muslim extremism in the U.S., it's the fear of white ultra conservatives.

"In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/b ... -shooting/

"Last week, the right-wing media outlet Newsmax — which receives 4 million unique monthly visitors and 130,000 print subscribers — published a column by conservative author John Perry arguing that a military coup could “resolve” the “radical left…Obama problem.” After being widely criticized, Newsmax retracted the column. However, the column appears to have encouraged an already angry group of anti-Obama radicals who have been plotting violence against the government."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/ ... -violence/"

I should say that I don't fear white ultra-conservative elements either, that they occupy too small of a space to concern ourselves with, though I do think these elements post more of a threat domestically than islamic terrorist.

Briton wrote:I think a large proportional of the most radical Muslims in the UK are British born. Most Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani origin, with significant numbers of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslims. That will have an effect on the figures.

Plus the historical factor. They were part of the British Empire which would have an effect on attitude to their former colonists.

the mouse wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

the mouse wrote:They pose as much of a threat to our society as a I do, and perhaps even less so than certain white ultra conservative elements.

Highly unlikely, given there have been recent instances of religiously motivated terrorism by muslims such as the Boston marathon bombing and the Fort Hood shooting, and none of similar events why "white ultra conservative elements". If there's anything more exaggerated than the fear of muslim extremism in the U.S., it's the fear of white ultra conservatives.

"In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/b ... -shooting/

Apples and oranges. CNN's figure of 34 killings in 13 years includes all killings by right wing extremists, whether or not the actual killing was done to advance right wing ideas, while comparing them to muslim killings that were specifically motivated by fundamentalist religious reasons.

The appropriate comparison to those 34 killings would be all killings by muslims in the U.S. over that time, which is likely well into the thousands. Heck, honor killings alone are estimated at 25-28 per year, which amounts to over 300 killings over that time.

You can't honestly argue that right wing murders are a problem in the U.S. without arguing that muslim murders are a far larger problem here. Contrariwise, if you consider muslim murders a nonissue, right wing murders are even less of an issue.

the mouse wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Elements of them surely do both where I live and where you live, despite your attempt to insinuate you lived in an exceptional country. I've already touched on the alarming level of forced marriage, support for honour killings, support for the view that women should be forced to obey their husbands and so on, all of these things are real threats, many of them to Muslims, who deserve better.

You've touched on the alarming levels in your own country. The only thing you've cited for muslims views in my own country are their views of suicide bombing for non-specific aims, which failed to even register for me as even an issue worth addressing, or applying our resources to combat. If you had stats showing that a large percentage of american muslims support honor killings, etc... that this might give me a reason for concern. But as of now there's a severe lack of evidence that american muslims beliefs are a problem, so I don't see why I should imagine a threat for which there's little to no evidence for here?

You shouldn't imagine anything, if you care you should look at the facts rather than crowing American exceptionalism. The facts are available, you can directly compare Europe and America if you want to (and since you already did that seems likely), but it's not my responsibility to convince you, my point was only that your lazy claim is easily refuted and I provided one example, from the several immediately thrown up by google, of how America is no different.

But as I said earlier it's transparently obvious that this isn't an honest discussion (if it was I might make greater efforts to provide more evidence to explain the reality surrounding your claim), I cannot credit for one second that you think that Muslim attitudes surrounding suicide bombing on domestic soil indicates a problem but Muslim attitudes surrounding suicide bombing on foreign soil does not indicate a problem. It has all the appearance of a nonsense position adopted purely for the sake of being argumentative.

the mouse wrote:

Many of these issues expressly rely on doctrinal and textual claims and are intrinsically linked with Islamic identity in the minds of the believer, I firmly believe that we cannot simply ignore the link between Islam and these practices and no amount of spurious statistics will change that view.

So are all verses in islamic scripture linked to the Islamic Identity? Is there one single Islamic identity, or a multitude of Islamic identities?

Are all verses of the bible linked intrinsically to the Christian Identity? What exactly is the Christian identity? One that more resembles gun toting conservative evangelicals, or the Mennonites?

Is there such a thing as an atheistic identity?

If I ever start talking about identities these questions might be relevant. Christianity and Islam are both religions, with doctrines, they are both sources of ideas and ideas can be criticised. The fact is that different people will take away different aspects of a religion, people with the same background can be indoctrinated in different ways, siblings who share the same background can end up with different beliefs, but those beliefs are still influenced by Islam in meaningful ways. Some of these ways, which I have specifically named numerous times already, influence rather a lot of people and are seriously unpleasant and deserving of criticism.

Was that REv again? He argued a lot like him (i.e. badly).

Here's Reza Aslan in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/19/muslims-atheists-relationship-experience

'Violent' Muslims? 'Amoral' atheists? It's time to stop shouting and start talking to each other

The logic of blanket statements falls apart when you’re confronted with the diversity of the religious and nonreligious experience

Reza Aslan and Chris Stedman theguardian.com, Sunday 19 October 2014 13.30 BST

Lost in the venomous arguments that have recently been flying back and forth between Muslims and atheists – on HBO and on op-ed pages, in the United States and beyond – is just how much these two marginalized, underrepresented groups have in common.

According to a Pew poll conducted this year, Muslims and atheists are the two least favorably viewed religious or ethical groups in the US. Both communities are severely underrepresented in the general population – roughly 2% of Americans identify as atheists, compared to 1% for Muslims. Both face rising levels of animosity from the general public. And both tend to be defined by the loudest voices within their communities.

More here

Hitchens described the religion as the horrible trio of self hatred, self righteousness and self pity in militant Islam. I'm kind of stuck wondering what the self hatred is.....

if the righteousness is their belief they are Muslim
the self pity is we ignore their demands and they don't get their way
so what is the hatred the fact they are human not god?

REZA ASLAN: The problem is that anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is at unprecedented levels, thanks in great part to the media rhetoric and people like Bill Maher who has been saying these kinds of things for a very long time and sort of getting away with it because he's a comedian and people like him, I like him. I think at a certain point, though, there's been a kind of jump the shark moment and I think that people who are smart and engaged are just not putting up with it any longer. And so a much needed conversation is just being had, and not just about the problem of religion and violence, but about the way that we talk about it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... 5.facebook

so it's all Bill's fault

Reza Aslan wrote:The problem is that anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is at unprecedented levels, thanks in great part to the media rhetoric and people like Bill Maher who has been saying these kinds of things for a very long time and sort of getting away with it because he's a comedian and people like him, I like him.

I bet you don't.

Just let me get this straight before I go down for a short sleep:

Bill Maher droning on about how gross foreskins are and how awesome routine infant circumcision is = totally unacceptable and contributing to the ongoing trend of unnecessarily mutilating non-consenting kids' dicks.

Bill Maher waxing about Muslims in general being terrible people = totally OK and he's not at all responsible for ongoing hatred of Muslims in North America.

Hrm.