NationStates Jolt Archive

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.


Disturbing reality buried
Fear of causing offence and wilful blindness will only end the day innocent Canadians die

By LICIA CORBELLA

In the news business, it's called burying the lead.

It means you missed the most important or interesting part of a story and led with something less significant.

On Feb. 13, the CBC published and aired the results of an Environics poll, which on their website was billed as "Glad to be Canadian, Muslims say."

Apparently "more than 80% of Canada's roughly 700,000 Muslims are broadly satisfied with their lives here."

That's a nice and cuddly kind of story, but hardly surprising. I've been to Afghanistan -- where many of Canada's latest Muslim population comes from -- and even the upper-middle class in Afghanistan live in difficult conditions. I stayed in Kabul's only five-star hotel in December 2003 where hot water was available one-to-two hours a day, electricity was sporadic and my lovely room was utterly freezing.

Poor and middle-class Afghans -- the vast majority -- have no running water, no heat, no electricity and most are totally illiterate to boot.

They are handsome hospitable people -- and extremely resourceful -- but Canada's homeless shelters would look like luxury to your average Afghan refugee. But I digress.

Waaaay down in the online CBC story about this poll is the news that when "asked about the arrests last summer of the 18 Muslim men and boys who were allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario, 73% of Muslim respondents said these attacks were not at all justified." That portion of the poll ended there. No more details. Why? The Environics website made no mention about this portion of the poll either.

However, on CBC's The National television program on the same day, this part of the poll was fleshed-out and the results are alarming.

Fully 12% of Muslim Canadians polled by Environics said the alleged terrorist plot -- that included kidnapping and beheading the prime minister and blowing up Parliament and the CBC -- was justified.

Predictably, the CBC managed to find a talking head -- in this case York University sociology professor Haideh Moghissi -- who dismissed this disturbing revelation.

"It's really negligible that 12 percent feel that the attacks would be justified," said Moghissi. "I don't think it even warrants attention."

Clearly, other news agencies and those who put the poll results on the CBC website agree with Moghissi.

But just how "negligible" is 12% of 700,000 people.

Well, if Moghissi knew arithmetic like she knows denial, she'd know if this poll is accurate, 84,000 Canadian Muslims think it's justifiable to behead our democratically elected prime minister and blow up the very symbol and centre of our democracy!

The Environics poll interviewed 500 Canadian Muslims and 2,045 members of the general population between Nov. 30 and Jan. 5 and is said to be accurate within 4.4 percentage points with regard to the Muslim respondents and 2.2 points with the larger sample group 19 times out of 20.

So, let's err on the side of caution here. Let's subtract the margin of error -- 4.4% -- from 12%. That comes to 7.6%, so let's say, just to be really non-alarmist, we round that down to 7%. That still means 49,000 Canadian Muslims believe conducting a terrorist attack on their own country -- Canada -- is justified.

Is it just me, or does this not strike anyone else as the opposite of "negligible?"

Isn't this significant news?

Considering this poll was published on the same day it was learned al-Qaida -- the Islamic terrorist organization behind the 9/11 attacks -- was urging its followers to target all oilfields, including Canada's, should wake complacent Canadians up.

"We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States and not only in the Middle East, because the target is to stop its imports or decrease it by all means," it states.

That threat was made on an al-Qaida online magazine called Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Holy War) and was discovered by a U.S. non-profit group that monitors militant websites called Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE).

In other words, the Environics poll indicates anywhere between 49,000 to 84,000 Muslim Canadians likely would view attacks on our oilsands development justifiable, and if that's the case, it's safe to assume some portion of those tens of thousands of people might be prone to carrying out such an attack.

We already know calls to martyrdom and jihad have been made from Canadian mosques, including one in B.C. and the one in Ontario the 18 alleged wanna-be beheaders attended. It's safe to assume there are more.

But, hey, this is Canada, where in the interest of political correctness and fear of offending, the lead on these kinds of stories gets buried and our heads remain planted where there is no illumination and therefore, no truth.

That wilful blindness will likely only end the day innocent Canadians get buried instead of just leads by those who justify terror on their fellow citizens and country.
Next story: Judging Liberal bias


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html

If it makes you feel any better (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070302.wtexas02/BNStory/National/home)

Why would it make me feel any better?

Maybe I should've used sarcasm tags? My point was that there are arseholes everywhere. That there should be muslim ones too is unsurprising.

If it makes you feel any better (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070302.wtexas02/BNStory/National/home)

Why would it make me feel any better?

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html

Edit to clerify

I dont know why they used the figure 4.4% for Margin of error that is not "Playing it safe" ... "playing it safe" in human surveys tends to be 5-7 percent


and (and these type of polls tend to be correct) what do you mean by "these type" of polls and how are they more accurate then other types?

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html
Cough (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html).

Maybe I should've used sarcasm tags? My point was that there are arseholes everywhere. That there should be muslim ones too is unsurprising.

Do you really believe 12% of all Canadians think that terrorism is justified?

"But just how "negligible" is 12% of 700,000 people."

Fairly ... considering on a population survey what they meant to say was 12% + or - 5% (usually)

You can find 7% - 17% of any crazies out there reguardless of what question you asked them ...


Really? An example?


and what do you mean by "these type" of polls and how are they more accurate then other types?

These type of polls, done by professional companies such as Environics with error margins; rather than tele polls, etc...

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html

Holy shit, man.

Do you really believe 12% of all Canadians think that terrorism is justified?

Huh? 12% of all Canadians?

Cough (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html).

That's quite disturbing as well. I'd like to believe we Canadians are more civilized.

Really? An example?



Hmm... let's see now. Ask who thinks all Jews should die and I guarantee you more than 10% will say yes.

Or let's replace Jews with Muslims. The results will probably be even higher.

Another question could be who hates the US. Plenty of people will say yes to that.

Cough (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html).

You obviously don't understand that when governments attack civilians it is war, but when civilians attack civilians or governments it is terrorism.

The sooner you accept bullshit conservative statist logic, the sooner you can sleep at night.

EDIT: The sooner they will let you sleep at night.

Do you really believe 12% of all Canadians think that terrorism is justified?



Really? An example?

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa083099.htm

An online poll (which opens up MOE to about 5.5 -7%percent) shows 65% of people think ouija boards are harmful

Again people believe stupid shit ... so?



These type of polls, done by professional companies such as Environics with error margins; rather than tele polls, etc...

All polls have error margins published or not ... and if they did not use telephone in their methodology I would be disappointed in the company, by far the best way to get a random sample of your population

care to try again?

Cough (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html).

Americans are stupid fat douchebags. It is true.

But I am not surprised about this. Look at the human waste product that americans elect.

Huh? 12% of all Canadians?

Why would you say that there are "arseholes" everywhere? Does it mean that you think 12% of all Canadians think terrorism is justified?

If it is a number such as 0.01%, this would still mean "there are "arseholes" everywhere" (duh!) but it still doesnt invalidate any concern.

I'm not going to deny the statistics, but I don't feel that Canada is under any threat... at all.

Quick, invade!

:rolleyes:

Huh? 12% of all Canadians?
yeah seriously, muslim or not, 12% of canadians would probably love to behead our beloved conservative prime minister.

/turns off sarcasm

All polls have error margins published or not ... and if they did not use telephone in their methodology I would be disappointed in the company, by far the best way to get a random sample of your population

care to try again?

Not really, a certain personality will be isolated as most people are much more likely to hangup.

Why would you say that there are "arseholes" everywhere? Does it mean that you think 12% of all Canadians think terrorism is justified?

If it is a number such as 0.01%, this would still mean "there are "arseholes" everywhere" (duh!) but it still doesnt invalidate any concern.

Are you seriously suggesting that supporting terrorism is the only thing that can make someone can arsehole? As long as someone doesn't support terrorism, they're an alright person, regardless of any other actions?

Also, there's no need to put "arseholes" in quotation marks when it's already inside a quotation.

Quick, invade!

:rolleyes:

Why on earth would anyone invade canada?

Why on earth would anyone invade canada?

They're basically French.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa083099.htm

An online poll (which opens up MOE to about 5.5 -7%percent) shows 65% of people think ouija boards are harmful

Again people believe stupid shit ... so?


You think a poll about ouija boards is in same category with this? Give a serious example.


All polls have error margins published or not ... and if they did not use telephone in their methodology I would be disappointed in the company, by far the best way to get a random sample of your population

care to try again?

I mean the ones which ask you what you think of a product, etc...

Not really, a certain personality will be isolated as most people are much more likely to hangup.

Oh it does have bias absolutely, but less then just about every other method because of its ability for complete geographic sampling as well as lower non-response bias then many other forms as well.

But this bias is the reason for your standard 2 - 5 percent MOE built in regardless of your actual statistical work

Know a better method?

Why on earth would anyone invade canada?

No doubt as a pre-emptive strike against the tens of thouands of Muslim Canadians who apparently wanna behead the PM and blow up the tarsands in Alberta. Or something.

You think a poll about ouija boards is in same category with this? Give a serious example.



I mean the ones which ask you what you think of a product, etc...
As opposed to asking you what you think of terrorism?

How are those less accurate?

Im sorry I am a stickler but I have a degree in statistics and so far what I have seen of your view on statistics I want to help figure out any mis conceptions and learn from it

No doubt as a pre-emptive strike against the tens of thouands of Muslim Canadians who apparently wanna behead the PM and blow up the tarsands in Alberta. Or something.
to save us from ourselves? why don't you just get down off your high abrams tank.

Are you seriously suggesting that supporting terrorism is the only thing that can make someone can arsehole? As long as someone doesn't support terrorism, they're an alright person, regardless of any other actions?


When did I say that?


Also, there's no need to put "arseholes" in quotation marks when it's already inside a quotation.

Ok

They're basically French.

No doubt as a pre-emptive strike against the tens of thouands of Muslim Canadians who apparently wanna behead the PM and blow up the tarsands in Alberta. Or something.

Funny.

When did I say that?

I said that arseholes (i.e. bad people) are everywhere (in all groups, not just muslims) and you inferred the meaning "terrorist supporters are everywhere". Therefore, you are saying that all bad people are terrorist supporters. Hence, one must be a terrorist supporter to be a bad person.

I said that arseholes (i.e. bad people) are everywhere (in all groups, not just muslims) and you inferred the meaning "terrorist supporters are everywhere". Therefore, you are saying that all bad people are terrorist supporters. Hence, one must be a terrorist supporter to be a bad person.

No you just assumed and you were incorrect. You also assumed that just because there are assholes everywhere we shouldnt be concerned about anything.

Let's say 85% of population A is criminals while it is 3% of population B. There are assholes everywhere (ie: in both populations) but this doesnt invalidate the fact that we should be concerned about population A.

Also lets say 30% of population C is composed of murderers while 70% of population D is composed of thiefs. Again, there are assholes everywhere but we should be still more concerned about population C.

In the end, there are assholes everywhere is a non-answer, kinda like answering there is pollution everywhere when we say USA is the worst polluter.

No you just assumed and you were incorrect. You also assumed that just because there are assholes everywhere we shouldnt be concerned about anything.

Let's say 85% of population A is criminals while it is 3% of population B. There are assholes everywhere (ie: in both populations) but this doesnt invalidate the fact that we should be concerned about population A.

Also lets say 30% of population A is composed of murderers while 70% of population B is composed of thiefs. Again, there are assholes everywhere but we should be still more concerned about population A.

In the end, there are assholes everywhere is a non-answer, kinda like answering there is pollution everywhere when we say USA is the worst polluter.
But you have not shown us that Canadian muslems are worse then other muslems nor that Canada as a whole (without the sub demographic) then any other country

So why should we be more worried about canada's population again?

No doubt as a pre-emptive strike against the tens of thouands of Muslim Canadians who apparently wanna behead the PM and blow up the tarsands in Alberta. Or something.

Aboot. That never gets old.

How much must Canada suck though, to be below iran and afganistan on the list of places to invade?

Let's say 85% of population A is criminals while it is 3% of population B. There are assholes everywhere (ie: in both populations) but this doesnt invalidate the fact that we should be concerned about population A.

Also lets say 30% of population A is composed of murderers while 70% of population B is composed of thiefs. Again, there are assholes everywhere but we should be still more concerned about population A.

In the end, there are assholes everywhere is a non-answer, kinda like answering there is pollution everywhere when we say USA is the worst polluter.

As long as concern is all it is. I admit to assuming you were the typical over-reactor as are many who start threads about the topic of islamic terrorism.

But you have not shown us that Canadian muslems are worse then other muslems nor that Canada as a whole (without the sub demographic) then any other country

So why should we be more worried about canada's population again?

Then dont. It's my assumption that a poll of non-muslim Canadians would yield significantly LESS support for terrorism.

Then dont. It's my assumption that a poll of non-muslim Canadians would yield significantly LESS support for terrorism.

Nice assumption ... Why? got other data you did not share with us? maybe something that you know shows support?

I mean if there were some info on it then we could really start with the cool statistics stuff, but at this point it seems like useless and potentially bias assumptions

Then dont. It's my assumption that a poll of non-muslim Canadians would yield significantly LESS support for terrorism.

Depends what type of terrorism, Al-qaeda type jihadists-your probably right, but communist/anarchist/white-supremacist-probably not.

I am sure you would get a similar number 7% - 12% if you polled Muslims in the USA or UK with the same or similar question. It would likely be higher in other regions.

I am also sure if you polled people in the USA or Canada

"Do you think we will be invaded by aliens in 2007?" or "Do you think a space alien will run for president?"

We would likely get a similar number.

Vigilance is our only defense!

And the mean value is 12%, which means 84,000 people. This is disturbing, if the study is correct (and these type of polls tend to be correct).

I also dont appreciate self-censorship of data just to cause no offence. Burying your head in sand until the problem goes away tends not to work.



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/18/3642930-sun.html

If it makes you feel any better, there are probably similar numbers of non-Muslims who feel that Islamic terrorism is completely justified. These are probably mostly Jew-haters and people who still believe in the armed struggle by the proletariat.

I bet the number is higher than 12% on this forum.

how about this official poll...our Conservative party's of Minster of Justice which represents 30% of Canadians, wants to imprison kids as young as ten years old....

Eventually people around the world are going to wake up and smell the Sharia. I just hope that happens before too many millions of valuable human beings fall victim to infidel WMDs, not to mention homicide bombers.

Eventually people around the world are going to wake up and smell the Sharia. I just hope that happens before too many millions of valuable human beings fall victim to infidel WMDs, not to mention homicide bombers.

Are not most bombers homicide bombers? Seems like such a useless term and does not add anything to the understanding of the act

What was wrong with suicide bombers? it more accurately reflected them taking their own life in the effort to take others lives.

Funny. I wonder if it could be argued Europe caught the whiff of Inquisition in time. How many people died during that?

And you are comparing when there wasnt even printing machine with internet age?

Eventually people around the world are going to wake up and smell the Sharia. I just hope that happens before too many millions of valuable human beings fall victim to infidel WMDs, not to mention homicide bombers.

Funny. I wonder if it could be argued Europe caught the whiff of Inquisition in time. How many people died during that?

Are you suggesting that Islamic terrorists have a level of technology comparable with ours?

Where are their tanks, man, where are their tanks?!

Europe didnt catch "the whiff of Inquisition in time." because not enough knew about it...

And you are comparing when there wasnt even printing machine with internet age?

Are you suggesting that Islamic terrorists have a level of technology comparable with ours?

Where are their tanks, man, where are their tanks?!

And you are comparing when there wasnt even printing machine with internet age?

The spanish inquizition was authorized by Pope Sixtus in 1478 the screw printing press was invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenberg ... 28 years earlier

Edit while the beginning of European inquisition started earlier it was still in full swing when the printing press was invented ...

Do you really believe 12% of all Canadians think that terrorism is justified?



Really? An example?



These type of polls, done by professional companies such as Environics with error margins; rather than tele polls, etc...
Now that I think about it, I think in any country 12% or more of the population would justify terrorism if it was in defence of something they really believed in.

The spanish inquizition was authorized by Pope Sixtus in 1478 the screw printing press was invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenberg ... 28 years earlier

Edit while the beginning of European inquisition started earlier it was still in full swing when the printing press was invented ...

We've also invented space travel but the overwhelming majority of people havent been to space.

What was the percentage of people *reading* during inquisition and percentage of people reading and watching news now via newspapers and tv's and internet, etc...? And among others, there is also the issue of civil activism. People can protest authority much more freely than in middle ages. When I said "inquisition", I meant that he was wrong to compare two time periods and even if my example was not fully technically correct, it was valid. I thought I didnt need to elobrate it further, certainly not to a level resembling an almost obsessive-compulsive attention to detail, in an internet forum. Apparently, I was wrong.

We've also invented space travel but the overwhelming majority of people havent been to space.

What was the percentage of people *reading* during inquisition and percentage of people reading and watching news now via newspapers and tv's and internet, etc...? And among others, there is also the issue of civil activism. People can protest authority much more freely than in middle ages. When I said "inquisition", I meant that he was wrong to compare two time periods and even if my example was not fully technically correct, it was valid. I thought I didnt need to elobrate it further, certainly not to a level resembling an almost obsessive-compulsive attention to detail, in an internet forum. Apparently, I was wrong.

Yeah, and Iraq isn't 100% literal NOW. Not even the US has 100% literacy.

We've also invented space travel but the overwhelming majority of people havent been to space.

What was the percentage of people *reading* during inquisition and percentage of people reading and watching news now via newspapers and tv's and internet, etc...? And among others, there is also the issue of civil activism. People can protest authority much more freely than in middle ages. When I said "inquisition", I meant that he was wrong to compare two time periods and even if my example was not fully technically correct, it was valid. I thought I didnt need to elobrate it further, certainly not to a level resembling an almost obsessive-compulsive attention to detail, in an internet forum. Apparently, I was wrong.

Well the inquisition lasted ~515 years after the printing press (Formal abolishment of the Index of forbidden books was in 1966 surprising I know) and can be considered the formal end of the European Inquisition ... I would say a decent amount of people were reading before the formal end of the inquisition

For sure not as many as today as literacy has only been improving but a fairly good amount

Well the inquisition lasted ~515 years after the printing press (Formal abolishment of the Index of forbidden books was in 1966 surprising I know) and can be considered the formal end of the European Inquisition ... I would say a decent amount of people were reading before the formal end of the inquisition

For sure not as many as today as literacy has only been improving but a fairly good amount

You really think that 1966 is the end that is applicable to the context of debate here? Some of you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

You really think that 1966 is the end that is applicable to the context of debate here? Some of you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

There's something wrong with that?

Most of my arguments on NSG are for the sake of it.

You really think that 1966 is the end that is applicable to the context of debate here? Some of you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Alright 1808, when king Joseph Bonaparte actually abrogated the Spanish inquisition

So 358 years after the printing press was invented ...

There's something wrong with that?

Most of my arguments on NSG are for the sake of it.

No kidding go figure arguing in a board designed for debate and argument about all sort of topics, god forbid.

I guess now I have to start feeling strongly about the side I'm arguing for.

This could take some effort.

I do those too ... all depends on the mood ... right now I am just drunk bored and a bit punchy from driving 10 hours this weekend (sober then it was after words that I relaxed lol)

No kidding go figure arguing in a board designed for debate and argument about all sort of topics, god forbid.

I guess now I have to start feeling strongly about the side I'm arguing for.

This could take some effort.

Then dont. It's my assumption that a poll of non-muslim Canadians would yield significantly LESS support for terrorism.

That would depend on how you defined terrorism. I think it would be difficult to define terrorism in such a way that it included suicide bombers who blow up kids on soccer fields and excluded similar actions by armed forces under the command of sovereign states.

Many, if not most, Canadians would support these actions in times of war if it meant we could protect Canada. Despite the fact that those same actions would be considered terrorism when perpetrated by the other side.

So what if x% of x-demographic think terrorism is justified? In my opinion, they would be right. Terrorism is easy to justify, given the nature of justice as we comprehend it socially. If terrorism is anything, it is justified.

Now, let us remember that 'justified' and 'right' are two totally seperate things (yet both are as subjective and immaterial as each other).

Now that I think about it, I think in any country 12% or more of the population would justify terrorism if it was in defence of something they really believed in.
I was actually thinking if they did a poll on all of Canada the number wouldn't be too different. Especially considering the fact that tyerrorism is justified.

You can really smell the political spin in this article.

For starters, the author compares the living conditions of Afghanistan with all muslims everywhere. Apparently all muslims live in squalor, so no wonder so many muslims claimed to be happy to be here. (Thus the author deminishes the value that muslims place towards Canada.)

Secondly, the nature of 'supporting' terrorism is debatable. Let's say I'm a muslim from Afghanistan living in Canada, and I get a phone-call from an english-speaking Environics poster. Would I be angry that the soldiers of my adopted country are fighting my countrymen in the land of my origin? Quite possibly. 'Supporting' doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to go out and start arming the nearist jihadist. The person responding to the survey might simply identify with the anger felt by the suspected terrorists. How much is lost in translation, and nuance?

Now, on one hand, I know what the author's getting at. Plenty of Canadians would like to think that terrorist acts will never happen on our soil. I'm sure plenty of them believe that the 17 terrorists arrested last year were all part of the Conservative party's plan to support the US or something. (Not a conspiracy theory I subscribe to.)

But what would the author have us do? Round up hundreds of thousands of muslims on the basis of an Environics poll? Hey, I respect Environics. I don't have a problem with their numbers. But the political correctness that the author seems to hate so much is part of the fabric that keeps our multicultural society from breaking down. Would the author have us exacerbate the situation and have those numbers of unhappy muslims go up? Or simply deport every single muslim in the country?

Yes, there is a possiblity of terrorism on our soil. There always has been. You'd have to be completely naive to think otherwise. However, mistreating our muslim population would only increase the likelihood of such things. Rather than immediately denouncing tens of thousands of muslims based on a brief poll, why don't we embrace the fact that hundreds of thousands of muslims call Canada home, and are willing to work with the rest of our country in a dialogue with the rest of the muslim world?

It's a little better than hiding under our bed because the guy delivering the newspaper is wearing a turban.

Good post, Mike...though you realise it's just not as much fun to take that perspective, so it shall, of course, be discounted.

Good post, Mike...though you realise it's just not as much fun to take that perspective, so it shall, of course, be discounted.

I suppose I'm waiting for at least one die-hard muslim hater to debate me, or perhaps one die-hard 'Canada's too nice to attacked' liberal to take me on. You'd think sitting on the fence would get you right in the thick of things...

Instead, you just end up with a stick up your ass.

Now that I think about it, I think in any country 12% or more of the population would justify terrorism if it was in defence of something they really believed in.Damn rights.

I'd especially like to know how 'terrorism' is defined in this sense.

Having a flaming road-block? I support that. Occupying disputed lands? I support that. Resisting force with force? I support that.

I'd likely be branded as someone who supports terrorism then, as loosely as terrorism has been defined in this country recently.

Damn rights.

I'd especially like to know how 'terrorism' is defined in this sense.

Having a flaming road-block? I support that. Occupying disputed lands? I support that. Resisting force with force? I support that.

I'd likely be branded as someone who supports terrorism then, as loosely as terrorism has been defined in this country recently.
Yeah, but even if it was defined as strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up a dozen civilians, you'd probably be able to find 12% of a population that would support it for a cause they believed in.

Good post, Mike...though you realise it's just not as much fun to take that perspective, so it shall, of course, be discounted.

Oh... and thanks!

I suppose I'm waiting for at least one die-hard muslim hater to debate me, or perhaps one die-hard 'Canada's too nice to attacked' liberal to take me on. You'd think sitting on the fence would get you right in the thick of things...

Instead, you just end up with a stick up your ass.

Hahahhahaa...listen, I live in Alberta, which is the perfect target for terrorism. And as rednecked as people here are, I've never heard any substantial anti-Muslim sentiment.

Sure, that might be naive. But I prefer that to fear-mongering stupidity.

Hahahhahaa...listen, I live in Alberta, which is the perfect target for terrorism. And as rednecked as people here are, I've never heard any substantial anti-Muslim sentiment.

Sure, that might be naive. But I prefer that to fear-mongering stupidity.

I work for a trucking company that has a large number of muslim and hindu employees. Racist attitudes were plentiful amongst many of the employees when the company first started hiring them for the freight side of the business. Eventually people became accustomed to it. I've worked with several Indian and Pakistani drivers and have nothing but respect for people who will travel halfway across the world to make a better life for themselves and their families.

So when I read articles like that one, it sits ill with me.

You can really smell the political spin in this article.

For starters, the author compares the living conditions of Afghanistan with all muslims everywhere. Apparently all muslims live in squalor, so no wonder so many muslims claimed to be happy to be here. (Thus the author deminishes the value that muslims place towards Canada.)

Secondly, the nature of 'supporting' terrorism is debatable. Let's say I'm a muslim from Afghanistan living in Canada, and I get a phone-call from an english-speaking Environics poster. Would I be angry that the soldiers of my adopted country are fighting my countrymen in the land of my origin? Quite possibly. 'Supporting' doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to go out and start arming the nearist jihadist. The person responding to the survey might simply identify with the anger felt by the suspected terrorists. How much is lost in translation, and nuance?

Now, on one hand, I know what the author's getting at. Plenty of Canadians would like to think that terrorist acts will never happen on our soil. I'm sure plenty of them believe that the 17 terrorists arrested last year were all part of the Conservative party's plan to support the US or something. (Not a conspiracy theory I subscribe to.)

But what would the author have us do? Round up hundreds of thousands of muslims on the basis of an Environics poll? Hey, I respect Environics. I don't have a problem with their numbers. But the political correctness that the author seems to hate so much is part of the fabric that keeps our multicultural society from breaking down. Would the author have us exacerbate the situation and have those numbers of unhappy muslims go up? Or simply deport every single muslim in the country?

Yes, there is a possiblity of terrorism on our soil. There always has been. You'd have to be completely naive to think otherwise. However, mistreating our muslim population would only increase the likelihood of such things. Rather than immediately denouncing tens of thousands of muslims based on a brief poll, why don't we embrace the fact that hundreds of thousands of muslims call Canada home, and are willing to work with the rest of our country in a dialogue with the rest of the muslim world?

It's a little better than hiding under our bed because the guy delivering the newspaper is wearing a turban.

For starters, she's making an introduction to an article, a personal experience. It may completely be your own bias that you interpret her attempt as a comparison of all muslims with Afganis.

If the "fabric that keeps our multicultural society from breaking down" is thin enough to be torn apart by civilized debate, then so be it. The ideal solution would be to confront this rather than burying poll results. Make more polls that would contrast views of muslim vs non muslim Canadians. If the rate of people which think terrorism is justified is much higher in muslim community, then acknowledge the problem. The solution may not be perfect but it is still much better than PC bury your head in the sand attitude. It may be limiting immigration from muslim countries and/OR better immigrat selection. Better checks on suspected mosques. Talk with the people in muslim community, have moderates make a campaign or something. Cut funding or close extremist schools. If it was feasable, I'd also support deportation of those 12% one by one. If they think blowing up the parliment in Ottawa is justified, they can just get the fuck outta here.

For starters, she's making an introduction to an article, a personal experience. It may completely be your own bias that you interpret her attempt as a comparison of all muslims with Afganis.

It's a rediculous blanket statement. It's like saying "76% of Christians love Canada. Well, I've been to Ethiopia, and let me tell you, they're handsome and resourceful people but, no wonder Christians love living in Canada."

See my point? She clearly compared the economic status of all Canadian muslims with Afghanis.

If the "fabric that keeps our multicultural society from breaking down" is thin enough to be torn apart by civilized debate, then so be it. The ideal solution would be to confront this rather than burying poll results. Make more polls that would contrast views of muslim vs non muslim Canadians. If the rate of people which think terrorism is justified is much higher in muslim community, then acknowledge the problem. The solution may not be perfect but it is still much better than PC bury your head in the sand attitude. It may be limiting immigration from muslim countries and/OR better immigrat selection. Better checks on suspected mosques. Talk with the people in muslim community, have moderates make a campaign or something. Cut funding or close extremist schools. If it was feasable, I'd also support deportation of those 12% one by one. If they think blowing up the parliment in Ottawa is justified, they can just get the fuck outta here.

Hey, I'm all for civilized debate. But screaming 'hey, how come those other ragheads aren't toein' the line' isn't exactly productive either. If there were mass protests in the streets from the muslim community that called for the destruction of our nations institutions, then yes, we have a problem. Instead, we have an article that's taking large assumptions about what exactly those 12% meant by 'supporting' terrorism. Have you seen the exact question posed by the pollsters? Do you think they asked 'Do you think we should chop off Prime Minister Harper's head?'

If they asked that in every home, and not just the muslim homes, you might still be surprised that you don't get a 100% 'No' answer.

Other than this columnists spin on the poll, I haven't seen any actual verbiage that states that tens of thousands of muslims are just chomping at the bit to blow up parliament.

Only four out of five dentists recommend Trident. Which means 20% of dentists support the complete rotting away of our teeth. I find that disturbing, don't you?

Only four out of five dentists recommend Trident. Which means 20% of dentists support the complete rotting away of our teeth. I find that disturbing, don't you?

Perhaps 20% support Harpoons?

*shrugs*

Perhaps 20% support Harpoons?

*shrugs*

Those bastards! :mad:

Only four out of five dentists recommend Trident. Which means 20% of dentists support the complete rotting away of our teeth. I find that disturbing, don't you?

:D

Ever the voice of reason!

:D

Ever the voice of reason!

It's a sad state of affairs when people look to me for rationality. :(

;)

How do you know they are telling the truth about trident? Maybe only 20% of dentists aren't lying.

Isn't that worse?

Especially those damn canadian islamic extremist dentists! :eek:

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :)

Only four out of five dentists recommend Trident. Which means 20% of dentists support the complete rotting away of our teeth. I find that disturbing, don't you?

How do you know they are telling the truth about trident? Maybe only 20% of dentists aren't lying.

Isn't that worse?

Only four out of five dentists recommend Trident. Which means 20% of dentists support the complete rotting away of our teeth. I find that disturbing, don't you?

:eek:

Quick, invade!

:rolleyes:

They can't. All their TV shows would either lose their cast or their shoot locations.

It's a rediculous blanket statement. It's like saying "76% of Christians love Canada. Well, I've been to Ethiopia, and let me tell you, they're handsome and resourceful people but, no wonder Christians love living in Canada."

See my point? She clearly compared the economic status of all Canadian muslims with Afghanis.


She may have said that if many of Canada's latest Christian population came from there and christianity was not an integral part of Canada's history.




Hey, I'm all for civilized debate. But screaming 'hey, how come those other ragheads aren't toein' the line' isn't exactly productive either.


Only you have screamed that.



If there were mass protests in the streets from the muslim community that called for the destruction of our nations institutions, then yes, we have a problem. Instead, we have an article that's taking large assumptions about what exactly those 12% meant by 'supporting' terrorism. Have you seen the exact question posed by the pollsters? Do you think they asked 'Do you think we should chop off Prime Minister Harper's head?'


That's why the issue should be examined further rather than being edited out.


If they asked that in every home, and not just the muslim homes, you might still be surprised that you don't get a 100% 'No' answer.


Speculation.


Other than this columnists spin on the poll, I haven't seen any actual verbiage that states that tens of thousands of muslims are just chomping at the bit to blow up parliament.

In this case, we have only this data about the attitudes of muslims and the only data isnt good. That's a reason for more research, not a reason for censorship so that "the fabric of our multicultural society" blah blah...

Blah, Blah?

I'd take it as a dismissive expression of sorts.

*Edit: pesky time warpage...

What Canada is going to invade?


Canadian beer sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She may have said that if many of Canada's latest Christian population came from there and christianity was not an integral part of Canada's history.

You're clearly ignoring it as contrast and comparison. But there's not much point in continuing to debate this one.



Only you have screamed that.

Well, only I've used those precise words to illustrate a point, but - point taken.


That's why the issue should be examined further rather than being edited out.



Speculation.



In this case, we have only this data about the attitudes of muslims and the only data isnt good. That's a reason for more research, not a reason for censorship so that "the fabric of our multicultural society" blah blah...

Her entire article is based on speculation, since you are willing to admit that 'the data isn't good'. And exactly what is being censored, as the 'truth' came out in this author's column? Media will always portray the results of polls as they see fit. It's not censorship if they choose to look at the results differently than you do.

And I take it you have a problem with multiculturalism? Or you just want to have the right to deport people en masse based on race/culture/religion? Perhaps camps in the Canadian Arctic until the 'crisis' is over?

Blah, Blah?

You're clearly ignoring it as contrast and comparison. But there's not much point in continuing to debate this one.

Well, only I've used those precise words to illustrate a point, but - point taken.

Her entire article is based on speculation, since you are willing to admit that 'the data isn't good'. And exactly what is being censored, as the 'truth' came out in this author's column? Media will always portray the results of polls as they see fit. It's not censorship if they choose to look at the results differently than you do.


Are you denying that this kind of debate (effects, radicalization rate, etc...of muslims in Canada) is subject to lots of limitations, rather than a fully effective open debate?


And I take it you have a problem with multiculturalism?

Multiculturalism is rather vague really. I think Anglo-French type of multicultarlism is a characteristic of Canada. I'm also ok with most forms of multiculturalism.


Or you just want to have the right to deport people en masse based on race/culture/religion? Perhaps camps in the Canadian Arctic until the 'crisis' is over?

Blah, Blah?


Right. Again, you are the one who has mentioned this.

You obviously don't understand that when governments attack civilians it is war, but when civilians attack civilians or governments it is terrorism.

The sooner you accept bullshit conservative statist logic, the sooner you can sleep at night.

EDIT: The sooner they will let you sleep at night.

Since when have terrorists been considered civilians?

If it was feasable, I'd also support deportation of those 12% one by one.

How is this not deporting people en masse based on race/culture/ethnicity? Yes, I made the jump to camps in the Arctic, but Canada has history of similar behaviour under similar circumstances. And where else could the article lead to, other than stopping immigration of certain groups because of their religious beliefs?

How is this not deporting people en masse based on race/culture/ethnicity? Yes, I made the jump to camps in the Arctic, but Canada has history of similar behaviour under similar circumstances. And where else could the article lead to, other than stopping immigration of certain groups because of their religious beliefs?

Deporting people who think that the alleged terrorist plot -- that included kidnapping and beheading the prime minister and blowing up Parliament and the CBC -- was justified. Is that deporting people race/culture/ethnicity? No. Was your argument a total absurd straw man? Yes.

Are we not debating it right now? Who says no-one is debating it? You pulled an article out precisely debating the issue. The 'limitations' of debate naturally include things that aren't going to insult a whole group of people and increase the likelihood of racial tension. It doesn't matter what racial/religious group we're talking about.

So, what's your defenition of a 'fully effective open debate?'

Why isnt this debated on TV? Why not more coverage in news? We certainly devote time to much less important things.

Are you denying that this kind of debate (effects, radicalization rate, etc...of muslims in Canada) is subject to lots of limitations, rather than a fully effective open debate?

Are we not debating it right now? Who says no-one is debating it? You pulled an article out precisely debating the issue. The 'limitations' of debate naturally include things that aren't going to insult a whole group of people and increase the likelihood of racial tension. It doesn't matter what racial/religious group we're talking about.

So, what's your defenition of a 'fully effective open debate?'

Deporting people who think that the alleged terrorist plot -- that included kidnapping and beheading the prime minister and blowing up Parliament and the CBC -- was justified. Is that deporting people race/culture/ethnicity? No. Was your argument a total absurd straw man? Yes.

Straw man? No.

They polled muslims, asked them a debatable question, and then you mentioned deporting those 12%. That's deporting them because they're muslim, yes.

Straw man? No.

They polled muslims, asked them a debatable question, and then you mentioned deporting those 12%. That's deporting them because they're muslim, yes.

So if you deport 4 murderers, and then they happened to be Christians, you'd be deporting them because they are Christian? That's silly. And I've never said only muslims who are supporting terrorism must be deported. However, they merit special attention, given the world events and most, if not all, terrorism in today's world is of Islamic origin.

Why isnt this debated on TV? Why not more coverage in news? We certainly devote time to much less important things.

It must be the vast pc conspiracy, of course. Or, maybe it could be because we don't have tens of thousands of fanatical, prime-minister beheading muslims in our neighbourhoods, and there's nothing really to report.

Come back when you have a real news story.

It must be the vast pc conspiracy, of course.

Whatever, if you really believe that.

You weren't talking about deporting 4 people. You were talking about deporting tens of thousands of people for having an opinion. And only the muslims were asked for their opinion. That's silly.

I did also say "if feasable" as in actually finding a method to ask all muslims about their views and confirming those views, which is quite impractical. Read better next time.

Whatever, if you really believe that.

I assumed you'd read the sarcasm into that...

I assumed you'd read the sarcasm into that...

Yeah, but I was expecting more wit.

So if you deport 4 murderers, and then they happened to be Christians, you'd be deporting them because they are Christian? That's silly. And I've never said only muslims who are supporting terrorism must be deported. However, they merit special attention, given the world events and most, if not all, terrorism in today's world is of Islamic origin.

You weren't talking about deporting 4 people. You were talking about deporting tens of thousands of people for having an opinion. And only the muslims were asked for their opinion. That's silly.

How much must Canada suck though, to be below iran and afganistan on the list of places to invade?already??? We are going to Invade Afghanistan again?

I was expecting this for 2010 at the earliest.

Yeah, but I was expecting more wit.

Must have touched a nerve. Whatever.

I did also say "if feasable" as in actually finding a method to ask all muslims about their views and confirming those views, which is quite impractical. Read better next time.

Poor me and my inability to read. :rolleyes:

I myself think certain measures are justifiable in order to combat US corporate imperialism.