Wave of Islamist terror attacks in France, Tunisia, Kuwait

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oRuL-hiYTVA?rel=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Sorry for calling you out on your lies.

 

A countervailing point to an internet survey that allowed multiple votes and could have been gamed with any set of internet vote rings/bots--

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...t-about-islamic-state-have-surprising-results

http://www.slideshare.net/TWIPubs/arab-public-opinion-and-the-fight-against-isis-english

I think this survey had a much better methodology than a multiple responses/vote-ringed set up with no thought as to sampling method. Any percent of Muslims that openly express support for ISIS is too much, but I'm not surprised the former unscientific study got a lot more traction than something professionally sampled.

 

I haven't read the other pages in the thread yet, but wanted to reply, ATW. In my opinion, those who support radical Islamic terrorism do so more from a lack of education and opportunity in their respective countries, than because of an inherent "flaw" in Islam as a religion. I don't follow any religion and would like to think that I can view them dispassionately. To me, Islam is no more and no less nonsensical than the vast majority of other religions. I mean no disrespect to those here who happen to be religious, to be clear. Because huge numbers of Muslims live in countries with awful "educational" systems, the system typically being that if you have money and the "proper social status," you can get a decent education, that status generally dependent on being a supporter of whatever non-democratic regime is in power in a particular country, it doesn't surprise me that these extremists, like ISIS, appeal to ignorant, poor Muslims left with no apparent hope for the future. Those Muslims I know personally here in the States are observant of their religion, yet highly educated, have a good life here, and are people we gladly have over for dinner, sans the cocktails. ;-)-

 

Maybe you'll stick to citing credible studies then

inb4 ISIS cybercriminal caliphate of mass DDoS attack through Twitter vote rings

 

man, so sensitive.

Stick with the Toronto Star not the Sun, the Sun openly prints unscientific garbage. That they partly admit it themselves doesn't make it any better. That you admit it is garbage doesn't make you much better on the front of citing garbage.

"may not be"

bahaha.

 

A lot of things, but I thought it was painfully obvious when I pointed out the central piece of evidence cited is complete unscientific garbage (and you agreed).

 

I haven't assumed, I've posted a properly done study to make my case that assumptions and anecdote are bogus--in fact with a margin of error of around 3% and properly selected samples, something like 5% of Saudis express support for ISIS and 1% of Lebanese Sunnis. You know, with a nationally representative study, not a time-constrained online free-for-all.

Any % is too high, but you're making a lot of assumptions and insulating a lot of things that a well-constructed survey that conforms to the basics of representative sampling do not fully support.

If you can't recognize why the equivalent of a Fox News sidebar without sampling attribution can't pass muster across a variety of basic sampling biases, I really can't help you. Sorry.

As for my main point: when you cite crap, everybody loses. Flawed information begets flawed arguments which begets flawed solutions and insights, if they ever arise. I was suggesting you cite less crap, but hey, take it as you will.

 

Don't assume the figure will be higher, because it isn't.

That's all.

 

>> "You lack the intellectual blah blah blah""
>> Proceeds to use unreliable poll, admits how bad it is, but still thinks its result have any meaning.

I've never seen anyone more oblivious than you. inb4 some asinine attack instead of defending why he would stupidity like above and think it's OK

 

I didn't know it was a technicality to answer a questionable pseudo-study and an unfounded assumption about positive feelings on ISIS in the Middle East with a study on just that.

I don't know why you're continuing to pound the same points you've been making through endless threads but I guess this is the default mode for you when you're stuck with countervailing evidence.