The questions in the poll you cited Ricky were of the softball variety;

That poll seems suspicious to me, as it implies at least half of the supporters of ISIS in France are not even Muslim

ICM interviewed 3,007 respondents in Britain (1,000), France (1,006) and Germany (1,001) by telephone between 11th and 21st July this year, before the group released a video of an apparently British jihadist executing American journalist James Foley

freeman3 wrote:A compilation of polls of Muslim attitudes/beliefs. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages ... -polls.htm

This is a biased source to be sure but who else would go to the trouble of compiling this? The picture that emerges is not of general moderation/assimilation.

If security forces concentrate on finding the few who become radicalized then, instances like Charlie Hebdo will be few.

This is a biased source to be sure

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never)

is particularly off because it seems that it's more than a few who are radicalized.

If security forces concentrate on finding the few who become radicalized then, instances like Charlie Hebdo will be few.

And, whats a few?

And, whats a few?

Ricky, you used the term first; why don't you frigging define what you meant

but I think the percentage of Muslims living in North America that support the Charlie Hebdo attacks are about the same percentage of Christians living in North America that support shooting abortionists

There are limits on casualties from school shootings as bad as they are.

By: Richard Gwyn Columnist, Published on Mon Jan 19 2015
Here are some comments made recently about ISIS, or the Islamic State, that has so rapidly conquered large portions of the nation-states of Syria and Iraq and gained allies throughout the Middle East (and Africa) as well as among some Muslim emigrants now living in Europe and North America:
“To describe the IS as essentially backward would be mistaken … globalization and modern technology have been its cradle.”
“It is spreading a positive and powerful political messages in the Muslim world — the return of the Caliphate associated with happier and richer times.”
“Under the religious veneer and the terrorist tactics lies a political and military machine fully engaged in nation-building, seeking consensus after territorial conquests. Residents of enclaves controlled by the Caliphate affirm improvements in day-to-day living from fixing holes in roads to organizing soup kitchens.”
“The Islamic State wants to be for Muslims what Israel is for Jews, a state in their ancient land that they have reclaimed in modern times … something to be proud of.”
And:
“The most surprising development (is) in the staggeringly successful nation-building of these seemingly backward insurgents as compared with the dismal nation-building attempts of the U.S.”
These comments come from the recently published book, The Islamist Phoenix. Its author is Loretta Napoleoni, an Italian journalist (she now lives in the U.S. and in Britain) who is an expert on money laundering and the financing of terror.
Cuddled up as I am in far-away, safe Toronto, I am in no way competent to judge the accuracy of Napoleoni’s observations and conclusions. Yet I cannot help feeling she is onto something important.
I’m ready to accept that some of Napoleoni’s comments are valid in part because she herself is as shocked as anybody by the savagery of many of the Islamic State’s acts.
As in: “Refugees describe its rule as a sort of carbon copy of the Taliban regime. (It) seems engaged in a sort of religious cleansing: people must either join its creed, flee or face execution.”
(Incidentally, the German journalist Jurgen Todenhofer, who spent 10 days inside IS’s territory, reports that officials there “envisage the elimination of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people.”)
Further, Napoleoni is exceptionally shrewd in her description of the way the Islamic State exploits the fact that “fear is a much more powerful weapon of conquest than religious lectures.” As she writes, “In a voyeuristic society (the one created by the Internet and social media) … sadism, when appealingly packaged, becomes a major attraction.”
Napoleoni is trying to warn us that the Islamic State has a coherent objective and operates on the basis of a strategy that is far more sophisticated than that of any of the other crude and bloodthirsty jihadist groups.
It may be crazed. It is patently so in a great many respects. And it is itself limitlessly crude and bloodthirsty.
But it does have an overarching purpose. That purpose is to end the centuries-long humiliation of uninterrupted failure that Arabs have endured, no matter that the principal cause of their miseries has been themselves.
Transformational ideologies of this kind almost always end very badly. There was much about the French Revolution that was idealistic and enlightened. It ended in slaughter at home and endless wars abroad. The same was true for communism. It ended in political repression and economic collapse.
The same can be said about all the interventions undertaken by the U.S. and other western nations to better the conditions of Arabs by “nation-building” their states and implanting democracy in them.
Objectively, a creditable share of our intentions were good. But, again to quote Napoleoni’s comment, the outcome of all these interventions has been “dismal.” Perhaps, amid those good intentions was too much arrogance.