The 'EDL'

Sultan

Laws we now criticise others countries having were in force in the not too distant past here in the West. Give them a few more decades, and we'll see a difference. These countries are just out the grip of colonial rules, and have been governed by same families since independence. Religious laws are often used in these countries to keep an iron fist grip on it's people, by rulers. You also have to factor in cultural differences - one size does not fit all. Just remember, what we take for granted here in the west has taken hundreds of years to come to fruition.

Despising them is not the answer. These people need time, support, and educating. Criticising people just causes animosity, divisions, and does not always achieve change.

Saliph

- Indeed they were, thanks to another Abrahamic religion.

- Not too sure about that. If anything things seem to be going in the opposite direction in many places.

- That's definitely the case in Iran, but in most Islamic countries the people are well behind their religion and religious laws. Once again, Pew's research shows this.

- This is not merely a problem with education or economics. Remember, for example, that all the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were college educated, many had been educated in the West, and several had Ph.D's. And support for suicide bombing actually goes up as you adjust for education and economic opportunity.

I reserve the right to despise and criticize people who execute/kill/persecute others because they change or leave their religion.

Sultan

There's been a massive rise over the last decade of right-wing radicalism fuelling spread of xenophobia and extremism towards religious minorities in the West. I hope your contempt is similar towards these groups.

Sultan

By Kenneth Ballen / February 23, 2007

WASHINGTON

Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.

But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts – and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.

Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.

Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries in the past two years reveal another surprise: Even among the minority who indicated support for terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden, most overwhelmingly approved of specific American actions in their own countries. For example, 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries – not exactly the profile of hard-core terrorist sympathizers. For most people, their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.

In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. Whether recruits to violent causes join gangs in Los Angeles or terrorist cells in Lahore, the enemy is the violence they exalt.

Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.

America's goal, in partnership with Muslim public opinion, should be to defeat terrorists by isolating them from their own societies. The most effective policies to achieve that goal are the ones that build on our common humanity. And we can start by recognizing that Muslims throughout the world want peace as much as Americans do.

The myth of Muslim support for terror / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Saliph

Indeed it is.

Kaos

I actually find myself agreeing somewhat with this sentiment.

I think one of Islam's biggest flaws is its stance on apostasy and its 'punishment' for it, which within many Islamic circles is death. Although some leading Islamic figureheads have nobly tried to detach such punishments from it, its still a worryingly accepted status quo amongst many Muslim circles.

I don't buy the whole "far-right parties got it right" reasoning that Harris uses though, in most cases their reasoning is motivated by pure bigotry as opposed to logic.

Saliph

- Well, Harris does say that they're right for the wrong reasons.

rcoobc

At first I thought that maybe, maybe they where a good thing. Everyone needs representation, even if they are nationalist cunts. Maybe they would be an important step in British society, an important milestone in getting minority groups recognised. I watched the BBC documentaries, I spoke to people who supported them, I spoke to those against. I hoped they might put forward their point of view without being cunts.

But no. They can completely fuck off out of this country, out of this world. They are far worse than the BNP because people think its acceptable to support them. If anyone involved in the EDL wanted to start an organic grass roots organisation about "English Values", you have completely and utterly failed. Shut it down and start again.

And that BBC Documentary is probably the most damaging thing to have happened, well done for showing the racists in a good light.

niMic

I am as much against right-wing extremists as I am against Islamic extremists. Maybe more, seeing as how Islamic extremism has had precious little impact on Norwegian society (or even European society). They're all fascist cunts, in my mind.

Kaos

They're two sides of the same coin, which makes it pretty ironic really.

Badunk

I did enjoy the bit in Proud and Prejudiced when the muslim nutjob punched the EDL nutjob. Smacked the sunglasses off his poncey face

jakec

Got drawn into a bust up with them tonight on Twitter, the utter, utter spastics.

VeevaVee

Link us!

An Irish Red

Are you not worried about the muslamic ray guns?