Quarter of British Muslims sympathise with Charlie Hebdo terrorists

I honestly thought it would be higher

 

You are assuming that having some sympathy with a motive implies some level of approval for the resulting action. I don't think that's necessarily true.

Here, the motive was what many Muslims apparently consider a grave personal insult to a highly revered figure. I believe that many in that 27% meant that they sympathize with why the attackers were driven to anger; not that they actually support the attacks themselves (which is what I guess ATW meant when he said "sides with").

 

he has a point.

the man who said that did a horrible horrible crime. but most of my family and friends and the younger me would support that statement above about gun rights and the federal goverment. i have changed my views on this but thats an example of sympathizing with someone but not supporting what they did.

 

You are misrepresenting the poll question. Not sympathizing with someone. I sympathize WITH the VT shooter because he never got the medical help he needed. I do not have "sympathy for the motives behind the attacks". The motives behind OKC were revenge. The motives behind the Charlie Hebdo terrorists were people drawing cartoons of should die.

 

the motives for the cartoon attacks were revenge for the honor of someone they love and admire like jesus. the motives for okc were anti federal govt and for its role in waco. the motives for a math prodigy turned terrorist were the effects of the industrial revolution on the natural world and overpopulation and mk ultra's programming. there are a lot of ppl in this world who would agree with two of those motives.

 

I would be shocked if that were true. I will gladly look at any polling data you have to back it up though.

 

So what is you're solution to this?

 

Motive need not be the same thing as rationale.

Dictionary definition of motive:

noun
1.
something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

If someone viewed the "motive", in this case, was anger over the cartoons, they may have "some sympathy" with it while not at all advocating violence/revenge. Again, as someone else pointed out, we're talking about responses given over a phone call, and to questions which are not particularly precise in meaning. Its silly to presume that 27% actually supported the attacks based on these results.

 

It may have had more to do with the group of people who where drawing the cartoons than just the cartoons themselves. To think it's just about the cartoons could be short sighted.

 

If I ask 1,000 people in East Texas if they want all Muslims killed, I wonder what percentage would say yes. And then I wonder how outraged ATW would be about it.

 

Hypothetical polls are so interesting. Much more relevant than the actual one posted in this thread we could be discussing.

 

27% said they sympathize with the attacker's motives. 24% said it was justified to attack the journalists for the drawings. I think the second statistic is more cut and dry that those Muslims agreed with this murder. 1 in 4 is a LARGE statistic.

 

Not at all. 24% disagreed with the claim that acts of violence against publishers of such cartoons are never justified. Maybe they think there might be some exceptional circumstance where some "act of violence" (which could mean anything) would be warranted. It means that 24% are unwilling to take an unconditionally non-violent position against anyone who degrades, in cartoon form, their Prophet.

I agree its a terrible position to have, but you can't infer that all of these 24% therefore think these particular acts of terrorism were justified.

Consider, for example, if you ask a group of Westerners, "Agree/disagree that using violence against someone who insults your Mom can never be justified," I expect a not-insignificant percentage would answer "Disagree". Does that mean all such people would support someone who murdered another because his Mom was insulted by them?

 

People identify with their own tribe, the people who indoctrinate them from birth with their traditions and credo. Even more so when they view themselves as marginalized or oppressed. If someone asks you a survey question you are likely to respond as a 'statement' that might not be supported in you actions.

Your survey is no big deal and hardly worthy of a thread on an American basketball site.

 

right, your opinion on here means nothing and will have no effect and is a waste of your time, just like me posting this.

Europe is still a pretty safe place to be
https://euobserver.com/opinion/127789

Even in times of global jihadism, the chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack are about as small as drowning in your own bathtub, being killed by lightning or be hit by a falling coconut. Moreover, the threat posed by "radical Islam" itself is grossly exaggerated.

 

What's up with European Muslims? Could it be related to Islamaphobia in Europe? Or perhaps the racism that occurs in Europe?

American Muslims aren't like this. Just trying to wrap my head around why this could have happened.

 

Big oceans to cross means you have to have sufficient money or skills, which skews the sample size.

Much like how Asians are seen as the "model minority" because it takes $$, will, and effort to get to the US.

Similar to EU Muslims, Hispanics have less difficult barriers to entry.

That coupled with the West needing immigration to prop up their economy because of declining birth rates puts them in a bind when crazies are starting to run around unimpeded.

I don't know if it's Islamophobia that's the root cause because before fear gripped the European media, there was discontent about "lower class" immigrants mooching off the welfare state while having no shame in their illiteracy of the host nation or at least trying to integrate with society.

The other side to that is a static culture of employment that on one hand almost guarantees job security, but on the other prevents younger or newer groups to enter.

Jackie or other Europeans could probably answer it more accurately...

 

how many westerners would want to murder someone who drew a picture of their mother?