Most British Muslims 'oppose Mohammad cartoons reprisals'

The majority of British Muslims oppose violence against people who publish images depicting the Prophet Muhammad, a poll for the BBC suggests.
The survey also indicates most have no sympathy with those who want to fight against Western interests.
But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.
Almost 80% said they had found it deeply offensive when images depicting the Prophet were published.

Poll of British Muslims

95%
feel a loyalty to Britain
93%
say they should obey British laws

• 46% feel prejudice against Islam makes it difficult being Muslim in Britain
  
• 78% are offended when images of the Prophet Mohammad are published
  
• 11% feel sympathy for people who want to fight against western interests
  

ComRes poll for BBC
BBC

More than two-thirds of respondents said acts of violence against those who published such images could never be justified.
But the poll, carried out between 26 January and 20 February, suggests 32% of British Muslims were not surprised by January's attacks on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine, which published depictions of the Prophet, and a kosher supermarket in Paris.




http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31293196


This really raises my concern of the affect of the millions used by the Saudi's to import the Wahhabist doctrine into the Uk and as seens its very dangerous affects based on this poll. The very fact a quarter of Muslims fell sympathy with murdering terrorists and their actions is based around a religious view of meeking out justice to any insult to Islam. Yes its very good that clearly there is a big difference in Islamic teaching where many view any such act as wrong and criminal, but what is evidence is there is most definately a school of thought here, Wahhabism, which is justifying this sort of crminality. I mean 27% have sympathy to the motive of killing people for printing cartoons. That is a worrying amount of Muslims, which such a view conflicts with the other results to claim they wish to abide by British laws or our culture of free speech.

It is also good many want to integrate, and it is wrong many are being ostracized and alienated by a group of the population, but Muslims are not doing enough themselves and they need to do more to counter this dangerous doctrine that is being allowed to spread unchecked in this country.

What has that got to do with anything Ben?

Brasidas wrote:What has that got to do with anything Ben?

An awful lot of Christians were homicidally angry about "Piss Christ" as well. Mind you, they were well-fed Christians who had more to lose in a holy war than they had to gain -- so they didn't declare one.

Everyone who declares holy war has more to gain from it, personally, than they have to lose (basically the very rich or the very poor). It's basic human nature.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:What has that got to do with anything Ben?

An awful lot of Christians were homicidally angry about "Piss Christ" as well. Mind you, they were well-fed Christians who had more to lose in a holy war than they had to gain -- so they didn't declare one.

Everyone who declares holy war has more to gain from it, personally, than they have to lose (basically the very rich or the very poor). It's basic human nature.

I am really not interested in regards to many Christians in this country Ben, because many would never back violence let alone commit violence based on their faith, because many are secularists in the main. The view here is on different views being taught in regards to Islam in Britain which are indeed at odds with the British culture, where it is clear Wahhabism is growing in influence in this country, which is a very worrying aspects for this country and Muslims themselves.

They're all (Muslim or Christian) just being pulled by the nose by their "betters."

Tell me I'm not the only one who has considered that bin Laden was a well-educated rich brat brought up in the culture of "risk vs. reward."

These "values" we worry about don't really matter to the people pulling the strings, you know. It's just a way to make people do things that they want to be done.

Ben_Reilly wrote:They're all (Muslim or Christian) just being pulled by the nose by their "betters."

Tell me I'm not the only one who has considered that bin Laden was a well-educated rich brat brought up in the culture of "risk vs. reward."

These "values" we worry about don't really matter to the people pulling the strings, you know. It's just a way to make people do things that they want to be done.

Sorry but none of the above has any relevance Ben to the fact there is a growing sect of Islam in the Uk which is teaching the view to commit harm to others and justify this. Whether Bin Laden was educated or not is irrelvant, his view on his religion was one seeking to justify commit acts of violence against people, whether politically motivated or not. The facts are this, even if the war in Iraq was wrong or not, you have two nations in Islam, Saudi and Iran hell bent on conflict with each others, using pawns in this through conflicts in Syria and Iraq.
The fact is 27% is a staggering amount of Muslims to have sympathy with the motive to kill cartoonists. That is at odds when we not only free speech, but places a view to commit harm if a religion is taking the piss out of.

I see the comparison, Ben.  Didge, it’s not irrelevant merely because you proclaim it so.  There are differences of degree, but it is the same thing.  First difference of degree: the issue of violence.  Option to violence is on a cost/benefit basis…as you say Ben, well-fed Christians have more to lose than Muslims living under Ottoman-like dictatorships.

Didge, you put too much emphasis on religion.  Human beings are all pretty much the same.  They have mouths to eat, and anuses to poop.  Religion is not all that large in the scheme of things.  If you are hungry you will go one way; if you are full, you will go another.  There is no special organ or gland that causes Muslims to act differently than Christians.  They are not genetically prone to violence.

The second difference of degree is this issue of secularism.  Muslims are just as capable of acting on secularism as anyone.  But they live in a largely 7th-century moral-cognitive environment, which competes with secularism.   We have seen from the Egyptian experience—where the urban dwellers are more secular, and the rural more religious—that secularism is related to modernity and the availability of education and, yes, well-being.

You have lately been enamored of this thesis of Wahhabism as the cause of Muslim unrest (ISIL).  I don’t think much of that theory.  In fact, when it comes to ISIL I don’t think the leaders are interested in religion at all.  They are ex-Baath Party functionaries of Saddam Hussein; fifteen-years ago they wore black colonel’s uniforms, hip-boots and strutted around in the halls or prisons deciding who gets tortured and who gets killed.   Today, they use religion cynically to manipulate the masses, and therein rests the significance of Wahhabism.

If you want an intellectual theory with which to describe these gentlemen, try Ottoman authoritarianism.  As one middle-eastern scholar has written: “What is suppressed by this image is that the authoritarianism of the earlier epoch has lagged behind and continues—to this very day—to hamper intellectual developments…[c]ertainly, authoritarianism and Westernization represent contradictory principles …”  Özdalga Elisabeth, Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy.

Not only do the ex-Baath Party members come from this kind of tradition, but they are acting it out every day.  Only authoritarians of this ilk typically take such glee in chopping off heads and burning people…or, that is to say, in the thrill they derive from the shocked reactions that they see among the innocent and civilized.  These are quasi-sick people, with strong sadomasochistic tendencies…and their sad act is working on us.  Realize them for what they are.  They aren’t messianic leaders.  They aren’t a religious movement.  They are Transylvania freaks, to coin a metaphor.

Indeed, even the Muslims themselves are getting a bit tired of ISIL’s antics.  Witness the recent reactions of Jordanians to the atrocities.

Ben_Reilly wrote:They're all (Muslim or Christian) just being pulled by the nose by their "betters."

Tell me I'm not the only one who has considered that bin Laden was a well-educated rich brat brought up in the culture of "risk vs. reward."

These "values" we worry about don't really matter to the people pulling the strings, you know. It's just a way to make people do things that they want to be done.

no you are not alone. I thought as much after reading The Bin Ladens by Steve Coll (who also wrote the excellent Ghost Wars).

ive always said religion=power=control=money =religion etc....its a never ending circle. The House os Saud is particularly good at telling their people to do one thing (and letting the religious nutters control the common people while seeming to accept it) and then living their jet style lives and playing off their allies for their own best interests. Well played to them but sadly its backfired on the rest of the world.

as to the OP - I am tired of seeing editorial cartoons on the Prophet - its not helping the situation. I feel the sane about ones about Jesus and Mary or Rabbis. People just don't get that with Freedom of Speech comes responsibility. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Before it got called PC it used to be called good manners not to set out to deliberately antagonize or offend someone on purpose. Something that seems to be sadly lacking in our world today in whatever sphere you care to mention.

Original Quill wrote:I see the comparison, Ben.  Didge, it’s not irrelevant merely because you proclaim it so.  There are differences of degree, but it is the same thing.  First difference of degree: the issue of violence.  Option to violence is on a cost/benefit basis…as you say Ben, well-fed Christians have more to lose than Muslims living under Ottoman-like dictatorships.
Absurd and you are trying to deflect from the real issue of what is Wahhabvism and its doctrines, it really has no n=bearing on what education they have because they ranged from highly educated to illiterate, but the beliefs in the doctrine are the same for all.

Didge, you put too much emphasis on religion.  Human beings are all pretty much the same.  They have mouths to eat, and anuses to poop.  Religion is not all that large in the scheme of things.  If you are hungry you will go one way; if you are full, you will go another.  There is no special organ or gland that causes Muslims to act differently than Christians.  They are not genetically prone to violence.
Again absurd and no relevance. This is a doctrine which basically takes all not of their view on Islam as an enemy to the point of inspiring and justifying violence, all of which you have no undertsand of the subject and make illusions to make something fit which does not. So yes there is views that teaches Muslims to act and it is the doctrine of Wahhabism. Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, Boko Harem and ISIS are all proponents of Wahhabism. So explain to me the most active present day terrorist committing the most attrocties are these groups and you think there is no connection. That is called sticking your head in the sand ignoring the evidence.

The second difference of degree is this issue of secularism.  Muslims are just as capable of acting on secularism as anyone.  But they live in a largely 7th-century moral-cognitive environment, which competes with secularism.   We have seen from the Egyptian experience—where the urban dwellers are more secular, and the rural more religious—that secularism is related to modernity and the availability of education and, yes, well-being.
Nobody is denying that Muslims are able to be compatiable with secualrism, you again miss the whole point and are going off in tangent. One sect of Islam is not compatiable, and that is Wahhabism. It is a complete Theocray ideology and it is based on early forms of Islam itself. I am all for a reformation within Islam, but you certainly have no idea about Wahhabism itself. To gain some insight just look at the Islamic state and Saudi, two nations that rule by complete religious doctrine and law, based on the Quran and Hadiths. This is about the fact Saudi has spent billions over the last few decades exposting this doctrine which has indoctrinated many Muslims, to the point we are seeing more and more a rise in violence and what doctrine do these Muslims groups follow that are doing this?
Wahhabism

You have lately been enamored  of this thesis of Wahhabism as the cause of Muslim unrest (ISIL).  I don’t think much of that theory.  In fact, when it comes to ISIL I don’t think the leaders are interested in religion at all.  They are ex-Baath Party functionaries of Saddam Hussein; fifteen-years ago they wore black colonel’s uniforms, hip-boots and strutted around in the halls or prisons deciding who gets tortured and who gets killed.   Today, they use religion cynically to manipulate the masses, and therein rests the significance of Wahhabism.
Not really bothered what you think about it to be honest as you have not even reserched this so basically you have not the first clue what you are talking about in regards to this.
Is that your claim to who they are, including all the foreign fighters that have flocked to them and they are just for show mass killing people based off nothing they use as support in their doctrines to justify their actions. Sorry I suggest you read up on this further Quill, because you are just second guessing. It is a naive view you have one that was seen before in the 1930's.

If you want an intellectual theory with which to describe these gentlemen, try Ottoman authoritarianism.  As one middle-eastern scholar has written: “What is suppressed by this image is that the authoritarianism of the earlier epoch has lagged behind and continues—to this very day—to hamper intellectual developments…[c]ertainly, authoritarianism and Westernization represent contradictory principles …”  Özdalga Elisabeth, Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy.
No thanks as that is complete balderdash, please stop claiming things that have no relevance or idea on the birth of wahhabism itself

Not only do the ex-Baath Party members come from this kind of tradition, but they are acting it out every day.  Only authoritarians of this ilk typically take such glee in chopping off heads and burning people…or, that is to say, in the thrill they derive from the shocked reactions that they see among the innocent and civilized.  These are quasi-sick people, with strong sadomasochistic tendencies…and their sad act is working on us.  Realize them for what they are.  They aren’t messianic leaders.  They aren’t a religious movement.  They are Transylvania freaks, to coin a metaphor.
No relevance

Indeed, even the Muslims themselves are getting a bit tired of ISIL’s antics.  Witness the recent reactions of Jordanians to the atrocities.

Many Muslims are at odds with Wahabbism, because its aims are to eradicate any non Sunni form of Islam, including all non Muslim faiths. This is why you are so short sighted in your whole reply. Sorry Quill you have no comrpehension here and is little point debating something you are very much in the dark about.
Once you have look up on Wahhabism, then lets continue.

Thanks and this will help

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/anti-extremism/7-islamic-radicalism-its-wahhabi-roots-and-current-representation.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html

Cass wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:They're all (Muslim or Christian) just being pulled by the nose by their "betters."

Tell me I'm not the only one who has considered that bin Laden was a well-educated rich brat brought up in the culture of "risk vs. reward."

These "values" we worry about don't really matter to the people pulling the strings, you know. It's just a way to make people do things that they want to be done.

as to the OP - I am tired of seeing editorial cartoons on the Prophet - its not helping the situation. I feel the sane about ones about Jesus and Mary or Rabbis. People just don't get that with Freedom of Speech comes responsibility. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Before it got called PC it used to be called good manners not to set out to deliberately antagonize or offend someone on purpose. Something that seems to be sadly lacking in our world today in whatever sphere you care to mention.

I used to think as you did and actually what you are doing is protecting religion from not only comedy, critcism and bowing down to extremist demands. If anything every western paper in the world should print them to show unity and strengh against such threats. Nobody should be cowed into submission because something that is no more than a myth makes people wrongly believe it is an insult tot heir faith to have people make fun of using a cartoon, to the point they think they can rightly kill over this. How many here are sympathetic to the motive used by the terrorists?
27% have sympathy to murder cartoonists and based off again a doctrine within Islam itself. Wahhabism. The other Muslims think it is rightly wrong, showin gthe clear divide of the doctrines being taught in Islam and people just want to bury their heads by either bowing down to them or ignoring this growing threat to not only non-Muslims but countless Muslims themselves.

Seriously Cass I understand the concept around if it is right to insult people but nobody is or should be shieded  from ridicule and cartoons are not even insulting but meant to be funny. They are not something to kill people based on a myth.

didge I agree 100% about they should not be used as an excuse for murder but somewhere somebody has to say enough is enough to both sides. this pig headedness from both sides isn't helping find a solution or common ground.

Anyhoos have to run t'shops - need a new handbag and then gym time. Hello muscles I had totally forgotten about

later m'peeps

Cass wrote:didge I agree 100% about they should not be used as an excuse for murder but somewhere somebody has to say enough is enough to both sides. this pig headedness from both sides isn't helping find a solution or common ground.

Anyhoos have to run t'shops - need a new handbag and then gym time. Hello muscles I had totally forgotten about

later m'peeps

To me that is not common ground, that is saying we have tobow down to threats, over again cartoons or criticism of a religion. We see people insulted everyday, from Politicians ro every walks of life. We rightly have in place laws to protect groups of people from discrmination but what is being suggested is something that nobody has evidence exists should be free from insult and to protect such a myth because some extremists will kill over this. That is giving into extremism Cass.

Enjoy shopping Cass and see you later

Ben_Reilly wrote:They're all (Muslim or Christian) just being pulled by the nose by their "betters."

Tell me I'm not the only one who has considered that bin Laden was a well-educated rich brat brought up in the culture of "risk vs. reward."

These "values" we worry about don't really matter to the people pulling the strings, you know. It's just a way to make people do things that they want to be done.

Very insightful

but some people will cannot see the forest from the trees

You are right there Veya, people wish to ignore the dangers of doctrine, if this was far right extremism, you would sit up, a dangerous religious extremism in the form of Wahhabism, the ideology of AAl Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Harem, ISIS and people are unconcerned how Muslims are being drawn and converted to this view of Islam.

This morning the BBC published details of a major poll of the attitudes of Britain’s Muslims. The headline on the front of the BBC website linking to the research states: “Muslims ‘oppose cartoon reprisals’”. This of course relates to attitudes within the Muslim community towards the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks.
It’s a reassuring headline. It’s also wrong. Many Muslims - a majority - do indeed utterly oppose the murderous killings in Paris. But a very, very large number of Muslims don’t. Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement. A further 2 per cent refused to answer the question. And an additional eight percent said they were unsure whether they had some sympathy or not.
That is a shocking figure. And an utterly shaming one for Britain’s Muslim community. If this poll is accurate, over a quarter of British Muslims overtly sympathise with the motives of those responsible for the cold blooded murder of 16 journalists, police officers and Jews.



Below the report is an article by BBC Today program reporter Sima Kotecha. It begins: “Islam is a religion of peace and love - not violence: sentiments that have been expressed numerous times here in Bradford. Out of the dozens of people I've spoken to, an overwhelming majority have said they're angry that their interpretation of Islam has been eclipsed by an extreme ideology that is too often projected in the media."

That statement - and those sentiments - are simply not compatible with the BBC’s own research. In a separate finding, the BBC found 68 per cent of Muslims believed “acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified”. Which means 32 per cent of those questioned take a different view. Another question asked respondents if they agreed with the statement “Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream opinion”. 49 per cent agreed. Meaning again, that a majority of Muslims either disagree or sit on the fence.
All of this raises two serious questions. The first relates to the BBC’s reporting. Let’s set aside their use of the word “reprisal” in the headline (reprisal for what, exactly?). Imagine if the BBC had commissioned a poll in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and that poll had found 27 per cent of white Britons agreed with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind his stabbing”. Imagine if, in an additional finding, 32 per cent of white Briton’s refused to endorse the statement “acts of unprovoked violence against black men can never be justified”.
Rightly, there would be outrage at those findings. And the BBC would be leading the charge. The focus, correctly, would be on the large number of people who expressed sympathy with the attacks. We would certainly not have religious propaganda masquerading as news analysis in the middle of the BBC’s report.
But a much fundamental question relates to the poll’s actual findings. There is no point continuing to stick our heads in the sand: a large number of British Muslims think the Charlie Hebdo attacks were in some way justified. People may not want to accept that. I don’t want to accept it. But it’s a fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/Over-a-quarter-of-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-the-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.-That-is-far-too-many.html

Brasidas wrote:You are right there Veya, people wish to ignore the dangers of doctrine, if this was far right extremism, you would sit up, a dangerous religious extremism in the form of Wahhabism, the ideology of AAl Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Harem, ISIS and people are unconcerned how Muslims are being drawn and converted to this view of Islam.

it is Conservative extremism they Islamic conservatives. they are actually RW, the whole hate gays, women and minorities, Blame other groups for their problems. is RW doctrine.

I am not really concerned only because I accept that the Western Capitalist doctrine is stronger, we are actually capable of far greater cruelty and destruction and do commit it regularly but just have the ability to distance our selves from it..... because we drop bombs from really high up... on people who's faces we cant see

it is dangerous but not as dangerous as us.
Also Does it not seem that we are extending out the war for media coverage?
I mean they are not as powerful as Saddam(less troops, worse weapons, inferior supply chain) but the media keeps going on like there is this million man army when it is tens of thousands. I believe there may be a conspiracy for something cause this is a distraction. IF we wanted to 'fix' it why aren't we? it feels like our gov't want to keep the media filled with this sort of Diversionary story... which makes me concerned about what they are trying to get through(both sides)

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:You are right there Veya, people wish to ignore the dangers of doctrine, if this was far right extremism, you would sit up, a dangerous religious extremism in the form of Wahhabism, the ideology of AAl Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Harem, ISIS and people are unconcerned how Muslims are being drawn and converted to this view of Islam.

it is Conservative extremism they Islamic conservatives. they are actually RW, the whole hate gays, women and minorities, Blame other groups for their problems. is RW doctrine.

I am not really concerned only because I accept that the Western Capitalist doctrine is stronger, we are actually capable of far greater cruelty and destruction and do commit it regularly but just have the ability to distance our selves from it..... because we drop bombs from really high up... on people who's faces we cant see  

it is dangerous but not as dangerous as us.
Also Does it not seem  at we are extending out the war for media coverage?
I mean they are not as powerful as Saddam(less troops, worse weapons, inferior supply chain) but the media keeps going on like there is this million man army when it is tens of thousands. I believe there may be a conspiracy for something cause this is a distraction. IF we wanted to 'fix' it why aren't we? it feels like our gov't want to keep the media filled with this sort of Diversionary story... which makes me concerned about what they are trying to get through(both sides)

Beggars belief
So Veya, if a quarter of Australians had sympoathy with lynching Aboriginies, you would not be concerned on this matter for Australia, you when they deflect this with some absurd this is okay because they are not as dangerous as someone else?
So you now think we are more dangerous, how is that even possible for the many Muslim victims of all the Islamic terrorism?
Where do you find such support in the Uk for people being murdered?
Please show me, as I am very unterested to see this comparrison.
This is as much a danger to the many Muslims who do not follow such views, which youi fail to grasp also.

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:You are right there Veya, people wish to ignore the dangers of doctrine, if this was far right extremism, you would sit up, a dangerous religious extremism in the form of Wahhabism, the ideology of AAl Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Harem, ISIS and people are unconcerned how Muslims are being drawn and converted to this view of Islam.

it is Conservative extremism they Islamic conservatives. they are actually RW, the whole hate gays, women and minorities, Blame other groups for their problems. is RW doctrine.

I am not really concerned only because I accept that the Western Capitalist doctrine is stronger, we are actually capable of far greater cruelty and destruction and do commit it regularly but just have the ability to distance our selves from it..... because we drop bombs from really high up... on people who's faces we cant see  

it is dangerous but not as dangerous as us.
Also Does it not seem  at we are extending out the war for media coverage?
I mean they are not as powerful as Saddam(less troops, worse weapons, inferior supply chain) but the media keeps going on like there is this million man army when it is tens of thousands. I believe there may be a conspiracy for something cause this is a distraction. IF we wanted to 'fix' it why aren't we? it feels like our gov't want to keep the media filled with this sort of Diversionary story... which makes me concerned about what they are trying to get through(both sides)

Beggars belief
So Veya, if a quarter of Australians had sympoathy with lynching Aboriginies, you would not be concerned on this matter for Australia, you when they deflect this with some absurd this is okay because they are not as dangerous as someone else?
So you now think we are more dangerous, how is that even possible for the many Muslim victims of all the Islamic terrorism?
Where do you find such support in the Uk for people being murdered?
Please show me, as I am very unterested to see this comparrison.
This is as much a danger to the many Muslims who do not follow such views, which youi fail to grasp also.

Do you support 'Military intervention'? that is dropping bombs.. murder/justified doesn't matter dead is dead.

no one is saying they are not bad but we can separate ourselves from it and it would have very little impact on us We choose not to. We choose to be involved (in part for resources/power/wealth) they we cant complain when our involvement has repercussions.

and the Aboriginals treatment just shows yeah western capitalist doctrine has been even worse in it's treatment of others... We are trying to make amends now for doing this in the past all while others of us have already started doing it to some else Again

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:




Beggars belief
So Veya, if a quarter of Australians had sympoathy with lynching Aboriginies, you would not be concerned on this matter for Australia, you when they deflect this with some absurd this is okay because they are not as dangerous as someone else?  
So you now think we are more dangerous, how is that even possible for the many Muslim victims of all the Islamic terrorism?
Where do you find such support in the Uk for people being murdered?
Please show me, as I am very unterested to see this comparrison.
This is as much a danger to the many Muslims who do not follow such views, which youi fail to grasp also.

Do you support 'Military intervention'?  that is dropping bombs.. murder/justified doesn't matter dead is dead.

no one is saying they are not bad but we can separate ourselves from it and it would have very little impact on us We choose not to. We choose to be involved (in part for resources/power/wealth)  they we cant complain when our involvement has repercussions.

and the Aboriginals treatment just shows yeah western capitalist doctrine has been even worse in it's treatment of others... We are trying to make amends now for doing this in the past all while others of us have already started doing it to some else Again      

Do I believe in killking innocent civillians?
no.
Now answer my questions you avoided.

ask a relevant question.

Do you support military intervention? YOU ANSWER A QUESTION FOR A CHANGE!!!!

IF the answer is yes than unless you have magic bombs that only kill baddies
YES you do support killing innocent civilians that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

YOUR make believe "We can just kill baddies we wont kill some good people in the process" Is Why 20% of Muslims feel we are hypocritically twats that kill innocents without care.

veya_victaous wrote:ask a relevant question.

Do you support military intervention? YOU ANSWER A QUESTION FOR A CHANGE!!!!

IF the answer is yes than unless you have magic bombs that only kill baddies
YES you do support killing innocent civilians that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

YOUR make believe "We can just kill baddies we wont kill some good people in the process" Is Why 20% of Muslims feel we are hypocritically twats that kill innocents without care.

You still have not answered my questions and deflecting again.
Do I support military intervention to save lives?
Yes
Already answered the second one, no I do not suppoirt innocent civilians being killed.
You though seem to think now people who commit murder is on a par with civilian casulaties in war, where the intent was not to kill innocent civillians where as in a murder it is.. If trhe intent is to kill civilians then that is war crime.
That I am against also, so you need to understand the difference and stop excusing murder as these Muslims are doing in substancial numbers and doing so based off their religion that to them it is an offense to mock their deity. That is not rational at all
So go back third time asking and answer the question

I only asked one question since
Yes you do as we don't live is magic world where you can have military intervention that does not also kill innocents

I also Support military intervention the difference is I accept and wont try and whitewash the fact that yes some innocent people will die because of it.

You have not asked a legitimate question.
If you think the aboriginals one is when it clearly is not then you are stupid.
Because Again That was true (but much higher than 25%) of BRITISH peoples opinion of Aboriginals just 150 years ago..

But perspective you don't see it that way BUT the aboriginals do.


AND yes it matters little to the families of the dead that we passed some laws to justify dropping bombs as opposed to using lines from a religious text.. dead is dead and their loved ones are still dead.

I asked a very valid question which again you detract from.
Not going to keep asking, which shows ytou do not have an answer which is more my point.

Night

WHAT QUESTION ????
You haven't even ASKED ONE

Run away and just prove yes you try this Pathetic Juvenile debating technique of Accusing people of not answering your question to AVOID Answering theirs And half the time YOU NEVER EVEN ASKED ONE or asked something so loaded that only moron would ask it and expect and answer and when someone Explains that it is more complex than the yes and no you want YOU FAIL to grasp it and then just insult people...
This time you have not asked one AT ALL !!!!

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

it is Conservative extremism they Islamic conservatives. they are actually RW, the whole hate gays, women and minorities, Blame other groups for their problems. is RW doctrine.

I am not really concerned only because I accept that the Western Capitalist doctrine is stronger, we are actually capable of far greater cruelty and destruction and do commit it regularly but just have the ability to distance our selves from it..... because we drop bombs from really high up... on people who's faces we cant see  

it is dangerous but not as dangerous as us.
Also Does it not seem  at we are extending out the war for media coverage?
I mean they are not as powerful as Saddam(less troops, worse weapons, inferior supply chain) but the media keeps going on like there is this million man army when it is tens of thousands. I believe there may be a conspiracy for something cause this is a distraction. IF we wanted to 'fix' it why aren't we? it feels like our gov't want to keep the media filled with this sort of Diversionary story... which makes me concerned about what they are trying to get through(both sides)

Beggars belief
So Veya, if a quarter of Australians had sympoathy with lynching Aboriginies, you would not be concerned on this matter for Australia, you when they deflect this with some absurd this is okay because they are not as dangerous as someone else?
So you now think we are more dangerous, how is that even possible for the many Muslim victims of all the Islamic terrorism?
Where do you find such support in the Uk for people being murdered?
Please show me, as I am very unterested to see this comparrison.
This is as much a danger to the many Muslims who do not follow such views, which youi fail to grasp also.

 3 questions waiting for a reply

It's no surprise to me that most British Muslims oppose the use of violence against those who publish cartoons of the Islamic Prophet. After all, who would admit to such a thing? They'd be condoning the murder of all those people.

However, I'm also opposed to the publication of cartoons of the Islamic Prophet, and I'm not a Muslim. It seems to me to be a very provocative thing to do, and it achieves nothing, except to cause a load of trouble.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's no surprise to me that most British Muslims oppose the use of violence against those who publish cartoons of the Islamic Prophet. After all, who would admit to such a thing? They'd be condoning the murder of all those people.

However, I'm also opposed to the publication of cartoons of the Islamic Prophet, and I'm not a Muslim. It seems to me to be a very provocative thing to do, and it achieves nothing, except to cause a load of trouble.

I don't know about that. It's got you discussing it, hasn't it? Or, does this not fit the mold of 'qualified' speech?

Give me an example of speech that "achieves" something.

if a quarter of Australians had sympoathy with lynching Aboriginies, you would not be concerned on this matter for Australia, you when they deflect this with some absurd this is okay because they are not as dangerous as someone else?

YES because I am Australian I would have a right to try an influence my own peoples, But realistically when this country was first settled By the British it would have been more than a quarter as the British literally said they were animals.... The Aboriginals hadn't hurt anyone we 'the West' have and do. the comparison is not the same, attacks on the west are retaliation for centuries of oppression, why cause did the British have to hate the Aboriginal to promote killing them?

So you now think we are more dangerous, how is that even possible for the many Muslim victims of all the Islamic terrorism?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/drone-warfare-life-on-the-new-frontline

Where do you find such support in the Uk for people being murdered?

The Above is Military intervention... innocence is an opinion.
ISIS are not under your jurisdiction.... they say the people they kill are guilty too..
I think they deserve to die but I understand that they think the same about me.
I also understand that inevitably with the capacity for destruction our weapons give us some innocents will be killed.

So more deflections from answering the question.

Was the question asked about the history of where the British have done wronr or the hyopthetical poll view of some Australians?

Seriously, how many times do you have to ask until you get an answer instead of these constant woeul deflections?

Try again