ISIS support in Europe. WTF!!

[bigdog]

Did anyone see that poll that shows 16% in France, 7% in Britain, 2% in Germany actually support the savages at ISIS.

 

I'm actually having misgivings about having gone to Britain on several holidays and bought my British car from a British dealer.

[Z3 Stalker]

I can see some of the population of any country supporting radicals, depends on the demographics.

[MightyMike]

Z3 Stalker hit the nail on the head.

[bigdog]

Until one does a little math. 7% of a population of 57mil is 3.9 million Brits that think ISIS is cool. The total Muslim population is 4.8% and I doubt that 100% of them agree with the ISIS bunch.

[coffee break]

I don't think the % applies to the entire population, only those interviewed/polled. I'm sure the USA has its' share of nut job supporters.

[bigdog]

Based on the replies so far. I'm actually regretting having brought it up on the forum.

 

I find any number above zero very troubling. Especially considering that even Al-Qaeda find the ISIS guys troublesome.

[Kitcat]

BD:

I dont think anyone here is offering sympathy to ISIS supporters. We all loathe beheadings, stonings, and death sentences to those who disagree with a particular religious point of view. We understand that complete intolerance for any one's point of view but one's own is unacceptable. ISIS is a ebola-like virus that seems to be spreading at an alarming rate.

 

But, your post seemed to raise the legitimate question of: How is support for extremists/terrorists possible? And people here are responding to that-not to show support for ISIS, but to participate in a discussion of a topic that you brought up.

 

Speaking of which, I dont see how boycotting products from a country where 93% of the population shares our mutual loathing of these despicable killers punishes the 7% who are simpatico.

 

And for what its worth, I sort of agree that a car-enthusiasts' website mite not be the best place to discuss incendiary political issues. So maybe the lesson here is it's best to stick to car stuff on this forum?

[coffee break]

This particular discussion area is "Off Topic". "Off" can take many different directions, some more pleasant or offensive depending on ones particular point of view and personal beliefs. As long as the discussions remain civil, I'm good with it.

[Off Road SHO]

I was once part of a group that needed a poll taken to judge public opinion. The Polling company sales VP asked us what kind or opinion we were looking for. After a few of us had that quizzical look on our faces for a while, he explained that you word the questions in a poll in a way that guarrantees that the people writing the check get the "opinions" that they want. He said this so matter-of-factly that we were stunned. He thought we were children with our naievity of how the media works.

 

As long as it gets hits, it's a success.

 

Tom

[bigdog]

I would never think that the group would support ISIS.

 

Here is the question in question, "From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as Isis?"

 

That does not seem a particularly underhanded question meant to illicit a certain response.

 

The same question in Germany had a much different result. And France? Well. They always seem to be off the tracks in one way or another.

 

Of course there is the fact that there are a lot of Brits in the middle east fighting for the Islamist's. And a Brit murdered Foley. I consider that a bit troubling. I do fear for Britain especially. As they seem bent on allowing every radical Islamist free access into their country. The killers father was in the US headed back to Egypt via the UK in 1991. Where he applied for asylum. And what did the UK do? yep. They granted it to him and he promptly got involved with al qaeda in London and was involved in the 1999 US embassy bombings in Africa. How nice. And as it turns out the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the 7% is far off if at all.

[slomove]

I agree it is troubling. But keep in mind that many members of immigrant communities (especially older ones and female) are very isolated in their new country, don't speak the language, have anyway different values, don't believe the same media outlets as we (sometimes) do and probably hear a different story about ISIS from agitators. I am not surprised that many of them voice support since they may not hear or believe the Western side.

 

It is a huge integration problem and the policies of the past have failed IMO. In Germany the majority of Muslims is Turkish vs. Pakistani/Indian in England and Arabic/North African in France. That and the different percentages of the population may account for the differences.

[slngsht]

Did anyone see that poll that shows 16% in France, 7% in Britain, 2% in Germany actually support the savages at ISIS.

 

I'm actually having misgivings about having gone to Britain on several holidays and bought my British car from a British dealer.

not much surprises me anymore :nonod:

[jimrankin]

Throughout history great societies and religious movements have risen and fallen but their impact and reach to the majority of the worlds population were limited by the constraints of the communications and travel modes of the times.

The fact is that we now actually do live in a world society where modern communications and travel have made it possible for almost any movement to spread their beliefs across the globe.

My generation (baby boomers) were brought up to think that differences in political ideologies, mainly communism verses capitalism, were the big problem and there was a good chance that the world could actually end with a nuclear bang. In retrospect that has seemed to be mostly the governments of the opposing countries pushing their own agendas. The "they want to wipe us out" rhetoric has proven itself to be untrue and while the arms race did spur massive leaps in technology and employment it eventually ran the USSR into debt and basically bankrupt and the US nearly so without much else to show for it

The "current" generations, our children and grandchildren, have a whole new selection of problems to deal with. The obvious fact that Putin wants the "old" USSR back is a bit troubling but not really the real problem of the times. The chances of the him pushing past the Ukraine and starting WW3 in Europe are slim at best.

The real problem, and possibly the end of the society as most of Europe and the West know it lies, as it really always has, in religion. Not "religion" as most of the people on this blog think of it as, but in religious fanaticism.

As the worlds population becomes more and more divided into the "haves and have not's" its become easier to spread religious ideologies to the larger number of have not's. Until the modern communications I noted earlier became available a lot of people who were living at what we in the west term subsistence level did not think that they were all that bad off. If you don't have a lot to compare it with basic food and shelter look pretty good.

Much like the other religions of the world have in the past the Muslim religion preaches what was, and still basically is, a "pie in the sky" philosophy. The big difference is that although the basic religion may have once been a peaceful one it, like most other religions, has been adapted by its environment. Outside forces like the Crusades and the incurrence of other religions into the middle east have changed it into what we are seeing now.

I myself have never been to the middle east. I do have several friend who have worked there and a couple who are now retirement age or older have said that the difference in three decades is truly amazing. Where they once felt safe by only observing local customs they now say that there is no way they would advise anyone to go there. It may be only a small portion of the religious leadership who are pushing the Muslim religion into a Fanatical one but they are the ones who seem to be holding sway with the poor and disenfranchised who are so much the majority. They are also well aware that the poor and disenfranchised in other countries are receptive to the ideas they are preaching and the ease with which they can move their information and disciples around the world.

Do I think that the spread of Fanatical Muslim ideas is a danger, yes I do, the same as the spread of any fanatical ideal is. Do I have any practical idea how to confront it, No. Short of educating the worlds population and making life better for everyone, not a real possibility, there is no way to reduce the lure of any fanatical movement.

Yes, I realize that the early Christian religious movement was considered fanatical and that joining it meant that you could hold beliefs in no other God but one, a fanatical concept at the time. It did not tell you that you must make everyone else in the world convert to it or die, a pretty defining factor based on what we are now seeing.

Whoops, didn't start out to say much at all and although this got long probably didn't say much in the end.

[coffee break]

Jim,

It reminds me of a Chinese proverb/curse "May you live in interesting times"

[NVP66S]

My generation (baby boomers) were brought up to think that differences in political ideologies, mainly communism verses capitalism, were the big problem and there was a good chance that the world could actually end with a nuclear bang. .

 

While I agree with your sentiments, I have to disagree on this fine point. Capitalism is an economic system concerned with creating wealth, and communism is a political system concerned with distribution of wealth. The difference between socialism and communism is that under socialism, capitalism is allowed to operate to an extent. (These are my observations, not from books or scholars)

 

One problem with socialism in all its forms is that they believe in a fixed amount of wealth and therefore the rich live at the expense of the poor. They just don't understand that you don't help the poor by hurting the rich. That may have been true in feudal societies, but technology has shown over and over again that wealth can be created at ever lower cost.

 

But to get back to the OP's question of what to do about ISIS, in the long run, we need to maintain separation of Church and State, and affirm that civil law is not to be subservient to religious doctrine.

 

Any more ideas?

Edited August 30, 2014 by NVP66S

[Mondo]

I don't understand how any group can think their way is the absolute right way when they have to use force, not reason, to get people to go along.

 

I'm no expert, but not all forms of socialism "believe in a fixed amount of wealth" for the rich. In fact, I've never seen a cap on what you can earn in a socialistic society (now communism is another thing all together). I believe the goal of a socialistic government, like Norway for instance, is more a minimum level of services for all in society. And some of the rich don't see how this benefits them. Kind of the "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Mondo

[xflow7]

I would never think that the group would support ISIS.

 

Here is the question in question, "From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as Isis?"

 

That does not seem a particularly underhanded question meant to illicit a certain response.

 

The same question in Germany had a much different result. And France? Well. They always seem to be off the tracks in one way or another.

 

Of course there is the fact that there are a lot of Brits in the middle east fighting for the Islamist's. And a Brit murdered Foley. I consider that a bit troubling. I do fear for Britain especially. As they seem bent on allowing every radical Islamist free access into their country. The killers father was in the US headed back to Egypt via the UK in 1991. Where he applied for asylum. And what did the UK do? yep. They granted it to him and he promptly got involved with al qaeda in London and was involved in the 1999 US embassy bombings in Africa. How nice. And as it turns out the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the 7% is far off if at all.

 

What's to say that the people responding are knowledgeable enough about current events to understand what was being asked of them?

 

If that was the only question asked, and it was asked to individuals regardless of their awareness of world events, then I would wager a substantial sum that the results are a reflection of a minority of respondents not knowing what ISIS really is. I can very easily see a respondent who is not up on world events hearing the word "Iraq" in there and assuming that they are being asked about their support for the nation of Iraq.

 

It's very easy for those of us who follow current world events to assume that everyone has at least a basic understanding of what's going on and who the players are, but it's never a good assumption. Throw in potential second-language effects and you could *easily* have lots of respondents who answered a different question than the one they were asked.

 

Dave

Edited September 3, 2014 by xflow7

[slngsht]

oh, they're around...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/exclusive-american-extremist-reveals-his-quest-join-isis-n194796

 

interestingly I was talking to a French cop who works just outside Paris. In her opinion, the real extremists are actually French born (to immigrant families), not those who actually migrated themselves.

[Z3 Stalker]

That is the same as in the UK, the children of immigrants that are running off to be martyrs.

[Manshoon11]

 

But to get back to the OP's question of what to do about ISIS, in the long run, we need to maintain separation of Church and State, and affirm that civil law is not to be subservient to religious doctrine.

 

Any more ideas?

 

Original thought is the solution.

 

I am anti-religion because of the surrendering to a higher power aspect and that I need to "just have faith" that all of the writings are correct. That is nonsense.

 

The problem is a complete lack of education. Everything these people know is fed to them. They are acting logically according to their upbringing.

 

It is part of logic 101.... The way in which one arrives to their conclusion is much more important than the conclusion one holds. There are those that hold economic beliefs completely opposite to mine, but they reached their conclusions in a logical fashion.

 

 

 

I'm no expert, but not all forms of socialism "believe in a fixed amount of wealth" for the rich. In fact, I've never seen a cap on what you can earn in a socialistic society (now communism is another thing all together). I believe the goal of a socialistic government, like Norway for instance, is more a minimum level of services for all in society. And some of the rich don't see how this benefits them. Kind of the "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing.

Of course they don't. Most of the people who do well in life look at all of their hard work, their rewards, and simply believe that that is the way forward, not free money. How is this illogical? How is this cruel to the poor? It is a logically derived conclusion. Welfare has grown 16x (inflation adjusted) since the war on poverty. Can you blame me or others for questioning why we should do more of the same despite no fall in poverty?

 

And there are really no such things as forms of socialism. It is more of how little or how much of it exists. For instance, the Great Recession was blamed on capitalism, yet total government spending/GDP is now at approximately 35%. That means 35% of all economic activity is directed by our federal, state and local governments. Just something to consider.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Manshoon11