(June 13, 2015 at 8:56 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 8:50 am)TheMessiah Wrote: I did not say most Muslims sympathasize with terrorism; they don't, my claim was that many Muslims, especially in Britain believe in blasphemy and are willing to use violence --- that doesn't mean they're all Bin Laden supporters, but they are considerably more radical than the non-Muslim population.

Based on what, since to point to the study of Kamaldeep Bhui and others again: 2.4% of people showed some sympathy for violent protest and terrorist acts.

To repeat: Violent protests and terrorist acts. 2,4 percent. The very study you helped me find by posting your article links. Either you have no reading comprehension or you're simply unwilling to read what doesn't confirm your bias.

Yeah, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Learn to read, and gain up on some context.

Many Muslims in the UK are poor; there isn't a wide range of rich Muslims. Pakistani Muslims who make up the bulk of UK Muslims have many working class among them. Out of the Muslims who do turn to militancy, only a minority do --- this is to be expected. Out of that minority, a common risk factor, and correlation is wealth. The wealthier Muslims who are in education, are actually the ones who become more militant. That 2.4% constitute a specific age group in addition to a specific socio-economic class, which most Muslims aren't.

Similarly, in 2004 book “Understanding Terror Networks,” psychiatrist Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer, examined the backgrounds of 172 militants who were part of al Qaeda or a similar group. Just under half were professionals; two-thirds were either middle or upper class and had gone to college; indeed, several had doctorates.

In a 2006 study, Swati Pandey and this author examined the educational background of 79 terrorists responsible for five of the worst anti-Western terrorist attacks of the modern era — the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombings in 2002, and the London bombings on July 7, 2005.

(June 13, 2015 at 9:00 am)TheMessiah Wrote: That 2.4% constitute a specific age group in addition to a specific socio-economic class, which most Muslims aren't.

Read the study, you twat.

Quote:Methods

A cross-sectional survey of a representative population sample of men and women aged 18–45, of Muslim heritage and recruited by quota sampling by age, gender, working status, in two English cities. The main outcomes include self-reported health, symptoms of anxiety and depression (common mental disorders), and vulnerability to violent radicalization assessed by sympathies for violent protest and terrorist acts.

Nothing about selecting a socio-economic class, but across the board.

(June 13, 2015 at 9:04 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 9:00 am)TheMessiah Wrote: That 2.4% constitute a specific age group in addition to a specific socio-economic class, which most Muslims aren't.

Read the study, you twat.

Quote:Methods

A cross-sectional survey of a representative population sample of men and women aged 18–45, of Muslim heritage and recruited by quota sampling by age, gender, working status, in two English cities. The main outcomes include self-reported health, symptoms of anxiety and depression (common mental disorders), and vulnerability to violent radicalization assessed by sympathies for violent protest and terrorist acts.

Nothing about selecting a socio-economic class, but across the board.

Again, thanks for proving my point: and see my edited posts citing Wikipedia in addition to other shcolarly studies which completely debunk this ''poverty causes terrorism'' fantasy.

The study is across the board, they sampled rich, middle class and working class. Only a minority of Muslims were militant, yet from that minority, a common theme was wealth privilege.

I'm well aware that a minority of Muslims are unsurprisingly, militant. What however, the study showed is that the minority who were militant shared the common theme of being privileged, hence why wealth was listed as a risk factor.

What that study is saying is that the Muslims who turn to terrorism aren't the poor and deprived, they're the rich fuckers who are born well-off.

(June 13, 2015 at 9:06 am)TheMessiah Wrote: The study is across the board, they sampled rich, middle class and working class. Only a minority of Muslims were militant, yet from that minority, a common theme was wealth privilege.

No, damn it. Read the fucking document I linked to. Not only my quotations.

Can you be arsed to look a little deeper or is that beyond your ability?

(June 13, 2015 at 9:11 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 9:06 am)TheMessiah Wrote: The study is across the board, they sampled rich, middle class and working class. Only a minority of Muslims were militant, yet from that minority, a common theme was wealth privilege.

No, damn it. Read the fucking document I linked to. Not only my quotations.

Can you be arsed to look a little deeper or is that beyond your ability?

I'm going to have to spell it out for you, slowly:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0090718

Sample: ''A cross-sectional survey of a representative population sample of men and women aged 18–45, of Muslim heritage and recruited by quota sampling by age, gender, working status, in two English cities''

From their sample, only a minority showed sympathy for terrorism: ''2.4% of people showed some sympathy for violent protest and terrorist acts.''

Now, let's examine that minority and look for traits shared among them:

Acknowledging sympathy for terrorism is uncommon: ''Sympathies for violent protest and terrorism were uncommon among men and women, aged 18–45''

Yet those who did sympathize: ''Youth, wealth, and being in education rather than employment were risk factors.''

Common traits of the 2.4% who showed sympathy for terrorism:

- Young
- Still in education
- Wealthy

These traits are highly common among most British Jihads who joined ISIS; most were in university, were born and raised in England, and had privileged backgrounds.

So you really didn't read the study carefully, or you misunderstood it. It is specifically saying that the young, privileged educated Muslims, still in education are risky.

(June 13, 2015 at 9:11 am)abaris Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 9:06 am)TheMessiah Wrote: The study is across the board, they sampled rich, middle class and working class. Only a minority of Muslims were militant, yet from that minority, a common theme was wealth privilege.

No, damn it. Read the fucking document I linked to. Not only my quotations.

Can you be arsed to look a little deeper or is that beyond your ability?

I've just read deeper into the study, did you actually bother to read the document?

''Those at greater risk of sympathies for radicalisation had an income of more than £75,000''

You do understand that working status doesn't imply employed? It has a much broader meaning, doesn't it?

And as for the above, I'm honestly at a loss why you're repeating all that has been said without even trying to make a point. So I gather, you won't invest half an hour to read the actual document and not only the preliminaries. Fine by me and nothing I wouldn't have expected anyway.

(June 13, 2015 at 9:21 am)abaris Wrote: You do understand that working status doesn't imply employed? It has a much broader meaning, doesn't it?

And as for the above, I'm honestly at a loss why you're repeating all that has been said without even trying to make a point. So I gather, you won't invest half an hour to read the actual document and not only the preliminaries. Fine by me and nothing I wouldn't have expected anyway.

You are being terribly dishonest.

I'm going to post it out in bold, clearly highlighted to show how dishonest you are being. Accusing me of not reading the document when you clearly didn't bother to read it.

It's spelled out, clearly.



http://imgur.com/gallery/KKjSKNt/new

(June 13, 2015 at 5:26 am)TheMessiah Wrote: [long reply redacted]

I'm still waiting for you to support your implied claim that the majority of Muslims are radicals. This conversation will move forward when you either do that, or acknowledge that you're talking out of your ass.

(June 13, 2015 at 7:43 am)TheMessiah Wrote: It is most certainly a global threat; that's why Islamic terrorism dominates America's foreign policy right now. His foreign policy is dominated by his inability to beat ISIS, it's also why China, a communist country is going to extreme lengths to get Muslims out of their country, and not allow any religious influx.

No, America's foreign policy is not "dominated" by Islamic terrorism. It is dominated by the concern of China claiming the South China Sea. That is the crux of Obama's "pivot" policy. America is lending aid to Iraq to contain ISIS not out of strategic considerations, but because we know that if the American-installed regime in Baghdad were to be toppled by ISIS, the futility of our entire policy in Iraq dating back to Hussein's removal will be shown to the world as bankrupt. And that is all it is.