One in four British Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists

[savvy]

From the UK Telegraph,

The group portrait of British Muslims painted by YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph is at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming.
The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.

The divisions within the Muslim community go deep. Muslims are divided over the morality of the London bombings, over the extent of their loyalty to this country and over how Muslims should respond to recent events.

Most Muslims are evidently moderate and law-abiding but by no means all are.

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.

YouGov also asked whether or not its Muslim respondents agreed or disagreed with Tony Blair's description of the ideas and ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous".

Again, while a large majority, 58 per cent, agree with him, a substantial minority, 26 per cent, are reluctant to be so dismissive.

The responses indicate that Muslim men are more likely than Muslim women to be alienated from the mainstream and that the young are more likely to be similarly alienated than the old...

[Aviva]

The divisions within the Muslim community go deep. Muslims are divided over the morality of the London bombings, over the extent of their loyalty to this country and over how Muslims should respond to recent events.

Most Muslims are evidently moderate and law-abiding but by no means all are.

This doesn't surprise me at all. One of the most worrying things about the first London attack was the efforts made by all the authorities to constantly apologise for the UK Muslim community and thus make endless excuses for it.

Since the second failed terrorist attack last week, that's stopped happening so much.

I would imagine that a high preportion of British Muslims either privately or openly side with the Jihadis at least in principal and this crazy situation definitely needs to be addressed in the UK.

It's treason - pure and simple.

[RichardP]

Thanks Savvy, I had only caught a glimpse of the poll last night. I don’t find much of it reassuring, as the UK has an enormous population of Muslims. This placating is ongoing, allowing the falsehood that true victims are the Muslims; this perversity takes root in the minds of not only Muslims but those of similar sentiment. This diminishes the sufferings of the true victims and the loved ones whom were slain or maimed.

Thanks Savvy, I had only caught a glimpse of the poll last night. I don’t find much of it reassuring, as the UK has an enormous population of Muslims. This placating is ongoing, allowing the falsehood that true victims are the Muslims; this perversity takes root in the minds of not only Muslims but those of similar sentiment. This diminishes the sufferings of the true victims and the loved ones whom were slain or maimed.

Treason it most definitely is: were the Black-Shirts under the guidance and leadership of Oswald Mosley during WWII treated so damn politically-correct?

[defari]

This doesn't surprise me at all. One of the most worrying things about the first London attack was the efforts made by all the authorities to constantly apologise for the UK Muslim community and thus make endless excuses for it.

You know, that's what really pissed me off SO MUCH. Why the hell are WE (non-Muslims) speaking for Muslims???????????????????????

If Islam does not equal terrorism, than it's the Muslims' DUTY to go out and demonstrate and protest AGAINST terrorism so that those terrorists could see WHO REALLY IS SPEAKING against them.

Do people really think that terrorists listen to anything Blair has to say??? Blair can't go saying that Muslims are not terrorists. It's the Muslims that have to go on TV, out on the streets, radio, Internet and say that they are not supporting death and that terrorists are not real Muslims.

Terrorists need to know that Muslims are not supporting them (if that's the truth).

So it's not up to us to say "Islam is this, but not that", "Don't attack Muslims for what a few people did" blah blah blah.

Muslims have to do something about it. Since it's THEIR Muslim brethrens it's up to Muslims to SOLVE/STOP terrorism. Not us.

But judging from this article Muslims probably don't want to protests against terrorists because they sympathise with them.

So I suppose when Muslims do condemn terrorism it's all a lie. Arafat condemned attacks on Israelis in ENGLISH, but encouraged killing of Jews in ARABIC.

But whatever, it pissed me off that more attention was given to "poor Muslim backlash" than the actual victims of those London attacks.

[RichardP]

You said it, and hit the proverbial Ilamo-Terroist on the head. The true victims, those maimed and murdered by their terror - are brushed aside with the kowtowning and leftist drivel, which purports the Muslims are the victims.
I am reiterating, nonetheless, it makes me sick; the apologists and their dunderhead disciples of BS!

[Luke90]

You know, that's what really pissed me off SO MUCH. Why the hell are WE (non-Muslims) speaking for Muslims???????????????????????

WE aren't. Our elected leaders are. Just because Blair isn't a Muslim why shouldn't he comment on them. He's the leader of the country, it's his job to speak for all his people, regardless of their religion.

So I suppose when Muslims do condemn terrorism it's all a lie.

So what can they do, when you're already dismissing anything they do say against terrorism as a lie.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

But whatever, it pissed me off that more attention was given to "poor Muslim backlash" than the actual victims of those London attacks.

It wasn't.

The true victims, those maimed and murdered by their terror - are brushed aside with the kowtowning and leftist drivel, which purports the Muslims are the victims.

People aren't generally saying that muslims are the victims, they're just trying to avoid a backlash against innocent muslims, trying to prevent there being more victims.

[Gilgamesh]

The problem, LUKE90, is the left inablity acknowlege the Islamist menace.
The attempt to make a seperation between brands of Muslems, is idoitic.
For example, has any of you took into account the possibility that moderate muslems can change their (expressed) minds? several times, a day? Moving between extrems is quite common for Arabs. I know a few. Only this fact, eliminates the unreal broder between moderate and extremist Islamist.

There is a story about UBL, being a playboy in Beirut of the 70's. Enjoying liqure and women and everything before becoming a devout.

Either the Britons will learn adjust and change, or you perish at the hands of the Muslems in coupld of decades (in your life time).

The analogy is (as always) WWII. Has Churchill made any distinction between Germans or Nazis (or German extremists, as they might be known these days)? Could the war be fought if such a distinction were to be made? When the fire bombing of Drezden took place (which I am full for it), has each bomb asked for the political opinion of the German who was about to be incinerated? Have the anaglo American pilots of the bombers, were concerned with the political sadeltied or inner devisions among modern Nazi followers, as MI5 is now concerned about Islamists?

A line has to be drawned on the ground, which the Brits (and other Europeans) fear to draw. All Islamist have earned all the suspiction and hate they can, for the actions the few. If the bombers are analogous to SS, then the everyday Islamist who support the bombers, are equall with registered Nazi party memerbs, and everyday muslems are analogous with greater German population.

The (handful) good Germans, fought for the allies, or at the least supplied vital information. How many good muslems actualy co-operate with the allies against the terrorists?

[Speaker]

I'm totaly agree with anything Gilgamesh said.

[RichardP]

Gilgamesh, well said...

[Luke90]

The problem, LUKE90, is the left inablity acknowlege the Islamist menace.
The attempt to make a seperation between brands of Muslems, is idoitic.

So what would you propose?
I assume you don't mean to literally firebomb all muslims (or a random selection of them).

I'm totaly agree with anything Gilgamesh said.

That's a very broad statement

[Gilgamesh]

Thank you fellas, Speaker and RichardP. *takes a bow*

So what would you propose?
I assume you don't mean to literally firebomb all muslims (or a random selection of them).

Before fire bombing the muslems, I suggest you read some of your own history...

1. Counter terrorism - Black and Tans
2. Ulster Defence Association
3. Ulster Volunteer Force
4. Battle of Jenin, 1936 The Brits used artillary to level large section of residential areas in Jenin where Arab terrorists were hidden among civilians.

There is no logic in your eye rolling... your Empire was kept togather with great deal of violance, which makes IDF legitiamte and moral defense tactics quite uncomparable.

What the Brists have to understand first, is that Jews and other minorities are not equall with the Islamists. Jews, Hindus or Chinese do not bomb civilians. Islamists do. Being of a minority, being poor and humble does not make one just or right or anything. These are Christian ideas which do not fit the real world.

Gilgamesh to-do list to fight terrorism:
You have a right to deny access of Islamist to UK territory. You have right to deny citizenship. You have to arrest and punish Islamist supporters, incitors and preechers. You have a right to demand co-operation from the muslem community. You cannot ignore Islamsit websites, TV and radio channels. You have to open an eye about Islamist content even in Arab countries. You have to understand Islamism is a whole package, you cannot ignore anti semetism and anti Americansim and focus only on anti UK... you cannot split the parcel. MI5 and the Yard have to use more Sting operations. Study the relations between international crime organizations and terrorism. Particualry narcotics. Both Hizzballa and Taliban used Heroin to finance their operations. (same goes for South America many terror organizations). Also, international crime organizations are the common logistical opperation of terrorism. The way whores and drugs do their way in, so does explosives weapons and suicide ombers.

[Luke90]

Before fire bombing the muslems, I suggest you read some of your own history...

There is no logic in your eye rolling... your Empire was kept togather with great deal of violance, which makes IDF legitiamte and moral defense tactics quite uncomparable.

I don't see the relevance of those links. I've never so much as suggested that all Britain's past or even current actions have been or are right.
Many of us now feel very ashamed of a lot of what was done in the name of the empire.

Gilgamesh to-do list to fight terrorism:

I actually agree with the majority of your to-do list and many of the things you are proposing are exactly the measures being considered under the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
In saying that, I'm assuming that you are defining Islamist as the extremist radical branches of Islam which espouse violence and terrorism and not just the more general definition which could include any muslim.

[Mediocrates]

But all of those things are covered under laws that already exist. Anti-Terrorism laws are generally window dressing to comfort the curtain-twitchers. You can't prosecute someone 'more' for the same crime. So what these laws generally do is enlarge police powers in investigating these crimes. They actually prevent much of anything, especially when you live in a country that is officially blessed with an insane political correctness - such as the police being forbidden to utter "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.


It's like here in the States when the NYC mayor decided to allow police to search people randomly on the subway. You and I both know that all this will result in is more low level drug arrests.

[Luke90]

The laws themselves are clearly not as important as how and how often they are used, but they could make it easier for police to deal with these problems.
The government clearly had to do something so the proposals come as no surprise, but the type of laws being proposed should be indicative of the direction they want the police to take in dealing with terrorism.

[Mediocrates]

Well we know they had to look as if they were doing something at any rate. It isn't to dissuede people from committing these acts and as you will discover, these kinds of laws rarely if ever ratchet back down. That may or may not be a bad thing but it's certainly permanent. And a critical side effect of that is that the 'definition' of terrorism expands ever outward. For example in some cities in America if you make a public threat to more than one person, e.g. a crowd, that is considered 'terrorism'. It seems kind of funny until you're the guy who's been dragged in to court. See the problem with chosing to become a police state is that it erodes the tolerance that people used to have for living among other people they don't like. Now, if you don't like your neighbor's loud music you can call the police and suggest he might be collaborating with some sketchy swarthy types.