You've jumped to a lot of conclusions. This is the worst. Your name is never mentioned, you are never referred to within the article. Unless of course you see yourself meeting these requirements

Please.  You know what's more obnoxious than someone writing a blog about someone else? Someone who writes a blog about someone else and then gets called on it and then tries to backtrack.

I'm the one who has been very explicitly stating that I think Islam is an ideology that promotes violence. Your article is largely in response to the poll I put up.

You, not I, are the one that claimed that people who think Islam and terrorism are tied together are a bunch of ignorant, unworldly people who probably have never met a Muslim. 

But you are a worldly man, so much so that you'd like to compare your travels to mine to prove once and for all who is right and who is wrong, so I guess you, despite all possible wishing, don't apply.

I don't think my experiences make your opinion invalid. YOU are the one who tried to argue that people who equate Islam and terrorism are unworldly. I was demonstrating that no, there's no such correlation.

To be specific: If you want to argue that Islam and terrorism aren't linked, then fine, do so. But if you're going to write a post that mostly is about belittleing people who have different opinions than you, then I'm going to address that too.

Bakerstreet writes: Your post most certainly wanted to draw comparisons, because you talk about 'slander' in the subtitle. Even if your poll is accurate, that's still 15,000+ Muslims that openly support terrorism. You really think that there aren't more who simply fear speaking out in a nation where terrorism is anathema?

Worse than just supporting terrorism, but literally supported a specific terrorist event -- the 7/7 bombings.  I.e. According to the poll deference provided, 1% of Muslims supported a specific attack that could just as easily have killed them.  Talk about an apples to oranges poll. Even 1% is amazing considering that it was about a specific attack that could have affected them directly.

To use an analogy, a poll asking whether Americans support bombing cities in the United States that have terrorists is likely to have very different results than a poll asking whether Americans support bombing cities that aren't in the United States.

As Bakerstreet points out, 15,000 British Muslims don't just support terrorism, but support indiscriminate terror bombings in the country they are currently residing in that have no specific point other than to kill British citizens.

So not only can we equate Islam to terrorism but we can now equate Islam to idiocy as well thanks to Deference's poll.

 

You are both barking up the wrong tree.

Bakerstreet said it when he accused me of comparing "apples to oranges".

You really think you can equate the attitude toward terrorism in Palestine to the attitudes in the UK? You're comparing apples to oranges. - Bakerstreet

I didn't. I never attempted to. As should be known and has been mentioned, a poll in the UK is not the equivelent of one taken in Pakistan, and Turkey, and Indonesia.

Bakerstreet, you and Draginol have attempted to apply apples to oranges with Religion of Peace Update: November 2006 and Muslims Shake Stereotypes in Latest Poll upon a single link given within the article due to your wont to loathe and fear Muslims and inflame similar sentiment among the public JU reader(s).

*yawn*

Drag, you wrote a three sentence 'article' introducing Muslims as those who allegedly state;"In many Islamic countries, intentionally murdering innocents in the name of Islam is considered acceptable by significant portions of the population. When, in truth, the question asked by the poll was;"[Is]Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam justified" Credit to Tova for pointing that out before I thunk it.

If I were to attack your poll Draginol, I would first post on your thread, then, introduce pertinent polls that contradict the one offered, then challenge the methodology of your poll followed by scathing attacks on your character, "He's a cut-and-run Libertarian!" Or something similar. J\K. Fortunately, I realized that accepting your frame of the issue was simply bogus.

As drmiler pointed out, he had no source to rely upon when it came to such requisites pertaining to my poll and petitioned me.

Sorry, but 1% of what? 1% can end up being a rather large group of people. That along with the fact that 100,000 Brits thought the attack was justified. - Drmiler

I couldn't find any mention in the survey addressing his question. In fact, I said:

Credit and thanks to Bakerstreet for doing the homework. I wanted to answer drmiler's very appropriate question by sourcing the methodology used by the survey itself but never does it anywhere explicitly state how many people were surveyed. - Deference

Who cares? The poll wasn't the big find, nor the selling point (as you know). Personalizing the issue was. I know some Muslims, they don't fit the image you sell, for whatever reasons. I think your particular attitude concerning all followers of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon his name) atrocious. You seemingly want to make us all believe the majority of Muslims want to kill and / or mass convert us all... - and you have the gall to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist on multiple threads?

I didn't comment on your thread Religion of Peace Update: November 2006 or engage you in any debate deliberately because you are, quite simply, Anti-Muslim. You seemingly and ironically want to make the Muslim the new 'Jew'. That's fine, but I would think it more advantageous for you to share your latest 'Muslim Encounter' with us detailing your conversation with a Muslim speaking of their lust for world dominance and mass conversion seeing as how well traveled and learned you proclaim to be. Yet, you provide no illustration or dialogue.

You provide a poll; inacurrately framed.

We should be reconciling with, understanding, and integrating Muslims to American idealogy or respecting their wishes to be left alone, not offering fear and loathing to our populus; inciting mass genocide. You are wrong in your very transparent attempts to criminalize ascribers to a religion.

Muslims Shake Stereotypes offers a view away from yours, Drag, but it was never an attempt to address or directly compare Religion of Peace Updates: November 2006, my article serves to complement it.

"You seemingly and ironically want to make the Muslim the new 'Jew'.

I don't remember ever being afraid of Jewish terrorists. Outside a dried up turd of a nation that people seem to feel strongly about, no one has every really had any reason to fear jews. If radical islam focused its violence there, people might have a more moderate opinion of them.

But... when you have to worry every time you fly on an airplane or visit a really tall building, it starts to eat at you. I'm sorry it oozes over onto your Muslim friends, but as long as people are doing violence in the name of Islam, the violence makes Islam an issue. Given the diatribes I read about Christianity, I don't think it's any different on the other side.

Yes, that vitriol was more directed towards Draginol, you haven't really posted anything bolstering hatred towards Muslims that I've read.

I don't think Brad has either. You can make this out to be isolated, but there are instances of the same fundamentalist islamic culture springing up here and in Europe and everywhere. I read an article yesterday about a muslim here in America that was tossed out of his mosque for writing a newspaper editorial condemning terrorist organizations.

To brad, this is a cultural phenomenon. You might call it a sub-culture, but it is definitely part of the environment in Islam today. I don't believe you'd have to work hard at all to find people very different than your friends. How would you address it? I think everyone can agree that it has to be addressed.

Yes, that vitriol was more directed towards Draginol, you haven't really posted anything bolstering hatred towards Muslims that I've read.

I point out that large %'s of Muslims thinks it is okay to target civilians in the name of Islam and I am bolstering hatred.

Okay, it's pointless to discuss topics with you since you seem incapable of seperating the message from the messenger.

You're lucky I'm not the hatred filled redneck you seem to want to paint me and others who don't agree with you as or else I'd not allow people like you to post here.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? Your right to do anything on this site is predicated on my personal tolerance. So if you're going to argue I have no tolerance or that I'm hate-filled or whatever, I'm happy to oblige you by demonstrating the difference between tolerance and intolerance.

I don't hate Muslims. I do, have a problem with their ideology -- Islam. I think it promotes violence. If this  were the 1930s, I would be saying the same thing about Nazism and Communism -- ideologies that promote very bad things. But that doesn't mean that every Nazi or Communist is a monster or that I hate anybody.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? - Draginol

Let's fix that right away. There will be no personal communication between you and I. You are blacklisted from Agenda and Malice.

The last person I ever considered blacklisting was Sir Peter Maxwell.

Congratulations.

And if you respond to this comment with anything that remotely appears disrespectful, then you're gone. Do I make myselef clear? - Draginol Let's fix that right away. There will be no personal communication between you and I. You are blacklisted from Agenda and Malice. The last person I ever considered blacklisting was Sir Peter Maxwell. Congratulations.

I would not "push" this agenda if I were you! It's not a very intelligent thing to do.

Thanks for the advice, Drmiler, but let's drop it.

  

Let's fix that right away. There will be no personal communication between you and I. You are blacklisted from Agenda and Malice.

That is something I get to choose.  I'll abide by your request.

For the life of me, I can't see how the results of one very questionable poll in the UK shakes anything, let alone the stereotype you accuse others of fostering when in fact they don't. I can't remember ever reading any posts claiming all Muslims were fire-breathing rabid beheaders or something. Of course there are peaceloving, kind and wonderful practitioners of the faith. There are also fire-breathing rabid beheaders practicing the faith, a significantly large number of them, sadly.

As you said, don't blame the messenger when the facts speak for themselves.