Yarp, people are just gonna keep asking that question till it gets addressed (not just on QandA but the media in general).

-PB

The first step for these ostriches is to admit there's a problem and then move on from there.

Found this clip that the questioner referenced brilliant.

[youtube]pSPvnFDDQHk[/youtube]

To be fair, Husic did talk about a WSU survey that supported that Muslims here overwhelmingly support our nation's values. Honestly though, unless you know a lot of info about the nature of the survey it's hard to respond directly to such a claim.

I don't want to go all socawank on your arse but there were 5 panelists and only 2 answers were solicited. Both of which, particularly the first answer, went nowhere even close to addressing, or even rebutting the question or facts.

The facts were thrown up that even 'normal' assimilated Western Muslims hold, what we would consider, outrageous beliefs towards suicide bombers, apostates, homosexuality and the treatment of women.

These aren't 1 or 2 %'ers or outliers and fanatics. These are 30-40% of these people that hold medieval beliefs out of line with progressive Western thinking.

It was a fair question that obviously the lefty, pinko, chardonnay socialists, latte sippers (did I get them all Rusty) decided wouldn't get a run.

I'm a big supporter of the ABC but it's starting to shit me lately.

I want to see Tony Jones or Leigh Sales grill a muslim head honcho (or any of them to be honest) on one of these programs when the Muslim representative says people need to be tolerant and we're peace loving and everyone is treated equally in the Islamic faith blah blah blah. I want the very next question off the bat at them that asks about their beliefs regards honour killings, homosexuality, apostasy etc.

They don't have the balls.

I didn't watch Q&A so can't comment on that. But surveys such as those quoted are notoriously unreliable. Both in terms of leading questions, and methodologies used.

Not to say there is no validity at all in them, but they do not have a good track record.

And also, i think you may be surprised at how many people generally would hold surprising views across many topics, especially depending on how the questions are structured.

As an example of the unreliability of survey questions - something like 60% of Australians support the marriage equality plebiscite. But this drops to around 30% when some basic context is provided (cost, and explanation that the vote is not binding).

That may well be fair enough but lets have the argument.

I have nothing but an opinion on this so make of it what you will but wouldn't it depend on the topic as well?

For example, homosexuality may be a topic with a wide range of results, based on the wording of the question. On the other hand, i'd wager something like paedophilia (kiddy fiddling - server has edited this) would not be something that would vary too much, irrespective of the wording of the question.

I would expect that something like suicide bombings could not even be remotely variable. Even if the question is unreliable by 50% of total pollers, say the realistic number is 15%, that's still a lot of people.

Edited by bethfc: 26/7/2016 06:56:13 AM

Its totally dependant on how you phrase the question. There was a recent UK tabloid poll that had a lot of controversy. Here is an article on it:

http://www.vice.com/read/i-conducted-the-muslim-poll-the-sun-jihadi-sympathy

I don't know enough about the poll being referred to on this thread. So I'm not judging it. I'm just hesitant to read too much into any of these types of polls because of how easily they can be skewed, and how unreliable these types of polls can be generally.

use the old "your a righty" slag line

Indeed but even if the poll is off by as much as 50% there is still an issue that needs to be discussed.

Q&A is a loaded panel of presenters, loaded questions, loaded crowd in the studio, loaded with manipulated data to suit their cause, just another media hack presentation hiding under the guise of credible media outlets....:^o :^o :^o

Its not just how much the polls are off by. It's looking at exactly what is being asked. That article i posted is a good example of the question being asked not being clear, as opposed to just the numbers being skewed.

That and it appears as though what the sun posted as a headline had absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked.

Its the sun. They are shocking. They have no shame

That response was better than anything Socawho could conjure.

I would like some harder questions and answers on Q & A to some questions but I think blaming the responses on "left bias" is a bit misguided. Really most people responded with answers that are very much in line with our current right wing government's message (and one that has been recommended by our intelligence agencies).

And this is the crux of the issue. Even if it was only 10 or 15%, why the hell are we giving work or humanitarian visas to people who are fundamentally at odds with our society? Why not give them to folks who want to join Team Australia instead, and have a much better chance of fitting in? It's not a race issue, Europeans do it, Asians do it, Indians do it , and nobody complains about their participation.

its not necessarily medieval beliefs.
Again its hard to comment without knowing the polls methodology but I've been trying to understand islam for a while now

it seems that in islam a conservative reading implies that violent retaliation is justified if you are violently oppressed. Thats not to say all muslims believe that reading just that it is one that leaps off the page when you read violent verses in context.
Also you have a duty to help other muslims that are violently oppressed.
In one sense its not too alarming, a lot of people believe in violent retaliation to violent oppression. Every 4/july the yanks celebrate this. Is supporting the american revolution a medieval belief?

If a large number of muslims believe that violence against the french is justified then it follows that a large number of french muslims believe the west violently oppresses muslims. This is consistent with a lot of osama bin ladens rhetoric. He often talked about the effects of colonialism, the israel palenstine situation and even global warming. His bookshelf included left and right wing conspiracies about the "evil" of the west.

Another strand in islam is that some muslims believe that if a later verse contradicts an earlier verse you follow the later verse. Of those that subscribe to this view some, particularly during the crusades, believed that a violent verse (surah 9:5) cancels out peaceful verses toward non-muslims. This was used to justify the crusades (jihad) on the islamic side. The Christians incidentally relied on strategies of dehumanization to justify some of their attrocities - the logic of this is if a people group were not "made in the image of God" you didn't need to treat them the way Christianity said you should. Muslims were created by satan, in 1400 black people were seen as not human so you could enslave them, witches were born to demons. You get the picture. What they both have in common is interesting though
1. it wasn't a conservative or liberal reading of their scriptures that justified violence. Many non-muslims I talk to think that its the conservatives who "take things literally" are to blame. This isn't quite correct. Many conservative muslims will say that the quran doesn't contradict itself and reject abrogation altogether. Even if you accept abrogation you still have to take surah 9:5 out of context since it does imply they were violently reacting to violence and therefore doesn't seem to contradict earlier verses. So the violent verses are read liberally not conservatively
2. you project an illusion of conservatism by taking verses which have no consequences very literally. Famous examples of this in Christianity are young earth creationism and end times conspiracies. The goals of yecs and end times conspiracy theorists aren't mass violence it should be said. However, ISIS are obsessed with the end times. This bait and switch conservatism is the signature of theocracies. In Christianity there is no remaining theocracies though some of the theology has remained around. You could argue that communism was atheist theocracy (atheocracy) and burma has elements of buddist theocracy so it appears that unfortunately this isnt a problem with islam but just the warping influence theocratic regimes can have on a belief system - or even a lack of a belief system. Unfortunately In islam there are unfortunately some existing theocracies today. It seems no coincidence to me that isis is based on Saudi wahabism and are obsessed with the end times while taking violent verses out of context.

So in my still very much got a lot to learn opinion islamic terrorism is caused by

1. the perception that muslims are violently oppressed
2. anything the west does that contributes to the above
3. anti western sentiment
4. anything the west does to contribute to this sentiment (not saying that the west has to be perfect to live in peace but there is some shocking things the west has been involved with like the removing of messedegh)
5. theocratic influences on some sections of islamic thought.

knowing all that there may be little we can do to stop islamic terrorism. Banning muslims could be a disaster as it would contribute to 1 and 2. We should examine our conscience about our foreign policy including policy involving muslims but our conscience not fear of terrorism should be the deciding factor in our decisions. I definitely don't think our concience has enough of a roll in our foreign policy compared to wealth, fear and power. Discouraging conservative islam seems misguided. Undermining islamic theocracies could back fire and has questionable ethics. Logistically it is difficult too since saudi is very powerful and one of the strongest western allies. Having said that overthrowing a theocracy in afganistan did kill al qeada whereas the power vacuum left by the iraq war did create a theocracy in the power vacuum which is creating a new wave of terrorism. So you could argue that destroying theocratic regimes has some expedient merit though one needs to have the ethical discussion on this. The west at the moment is trying to equip muslim nations to fight isis rather than fight them themselves so that it doesn't feed into 1. to 4. The cost of this is that it might make a longer war effort and who knows what those that are equipped will be like

Like it or not there may be little that can be done about islamic terrorism in the medium term but be kind to the muslims who are here to undermine narrative 1 to 4. (apart from it being a good thing to do anyway)

There are 5 000 000 muslims in France.

If you want to speculate about percentages here's a little eye opener.

1 % = 50 000.
0.1 % = 5 000
0.01% = 500
0.001% = 50

So if only 1 in 100 000 are a lunatic that's 50 lunatics running around France at the moment. (I.E. 99.999% are peaceful law abiding muslims.)

And I'm betting the number is way higher than 1 in 100 000.

At 1 in 10 000 that's 500 unhinged mental cases. (I.E. 99.99% are peaceful law abiding muslims.)

Given it took only 7 lunatics to kill 130 people in Paris it's a definite worry.

Say what you want about Christians and their fundamentalism but these days that extends as far as opposition to gay marriage and the belief that creationism should be taught along side evolution. I'm not seeing any evidence of a widespread 'jihad' against non-believers.

Christianity started moving out of the dark ages 400 years ago. We cannot wait 400 years for Islam to catch up.

There's a very real battle at play here.

if someone becomes a terrorist because of theocratic influences on their theology there is little we can do in the short term. If they become a terrorist because they believe that violent retaliation is justified we can lower the "crazy" it takes to believe that muslims are the recipients of western violent oppression. The statistical argument you made in the minds of an only slightly crazy muslim
there are hundreds of millions of westerners with incredible power and wealth
if 10% of them have crusader views and want to oppress or undermine muslims that tens of millions
if 1% thats millions
if 0.1% thats hundreds of thousands. You get the picture.

At the moment muslims might cop a lot of abuse in the community and the amount of crazy it takes to believe that muslims are violently oppressed by western "crusaders" is lower than it could be

which brings me to the subject of why people talk about racism on the subject of islamic terrorism.
If you take the definition of racism as a system of advantage based on race then when talking about islamic terrorism you have to consider that it can create such a system. Examples of this would be sikhs (who aren't muslim but look muslim) getting abuse. Experiments with people with muslim sounding names having more trouble getting jobs than identical resumes with white sounding names. Also bahai atheist and christians from muslim countries copping abuse. That doesn't mean the conversation should be shut down. But this is a point to think about

It's no different to seeing a North Korean Lady present news in a kimono dress announcing the Dear Leader has conquered the world

It could, but then again so can our bikini culture. Should we ban bikinis because it might incite some Muslims to commit terror? If we don't and continue to accept Muslim immigrants, aren't we just potentially fueling more Islamic terrorism by not changing our laws to accommodate them?

The notion that the best way to combat Islamic fundamentalism and radicals is to import more fundamentalists and radicals as it as stupid as it ostensibly sounds.

If you bought a crate of 1000 apples and one turned out bad that it killed several people, would you go and buy more of those apples if there was no way of knowing if you'd get another bad apple?

Or would you simply buy your apples from some one who harvested theirs from a different field growing a different variety?

The Left will simply tell you all apples are the same no matter what what regardless of where they are grown

Do you have an orginal thought? All i read from you is reminicent 9f andrew bolt and steve price. All you are doing is repeating ad nasuem.

Deflection :lol:

Funny. Same goes for you. Do you have an original thought or do you spout the shit you hear from mummy and daddy? And hear i thought the the right dont do childish put downs and you are .

We know who wears the pants in your marriage and it certainly ain't you

Edited by Socawho: 26/7/2016 05:08:33 PM

Wow. Attack my family. You have hit a new low. And I dont care if you want to have a go at me. But dont you dare speak ill of my family again

Don't give it if you can't take it