• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massive Muslim inbreeding over 1,400 years may have ruined gene pool

No. It is being greatly exaggerated.



No references to who was commissioned and what questions were asked. I apologies but I have seen way to much crap on the Internet to accept it a face value. If you can list sources and not a video on a web blog it would help.

No. I consider it bigotry to condemn followers of Islam as terrorist etc by acts of the minority.


The survey was done by

Social Research


And the 48 questions asked are shown in the presentation itself, along with them all printed lower down on the web page too. Can you not scroll through the presentation or scroll down the page to read them? Or would that be too much trouble as you really don't like any facts or figures that put Islam in a bad light do you, & you would dismiss them anyway, no matter what the source or content.

So you think that half a million Muslims (that is 1 in 5 Muslims you will meet in the UK) thinking that acts of terrorism are justified to be committed in Britain for whatever reason is not a problem & just a minority? Wow! What figures do you plan to go on before in your appeasing mind it does become a problem? 3 or 4 Million Muslims thinking like this?

And if you also really do think that asking Muslims any of the questions asked in this survey is indeed bigotory then all I can say is you are the best appeaser & apologiser for Islam I have seen for a long time since the likes of Ken Livingstone (ex Mayor of London & George Galloway). I take it you went through the Barrack Obama school for Islamic appeasement & got top honours I see! LOL!
 
The survey was done by

Social Research


And the 48 questions asked are shown in the presentation itself, along with them all printed lower down on the web page too. Can you not scroll through the presentation or scroll down the page to read them? Or would that be too much trouble as you really don't like any facts or figures that put Islam in a bad light do you, & you would dismiss them anyway, no matter what the source or content.

So you think that half a million Muslims (that is 1 in 5 Muslims you will meet in the UK) thinking that acts of terrorism are justified to be committed in Britain for whatever reason is not a problem & just a minority? Wow! What figures do you plan to go on before in your appeasing mind it does become a problem? 3 or 4 Million Muslims thinking like this?

And if you also really do think that asking Muslims any of the questions asked in this survey is indeed bigotory then all I can say is you are the best appeaser & apologiser for Islam I have seen for a long time since the likes of Ken Livingstone (ex Mayor of London & George Galloway). I take it you went through the Barrack Obama school for Islamic appeasement & got top honours I see! LOL!

OK man. I am done.

You have a good one.
 
Last edited:
OK man. I am done.

You have a good one.

Whilst you may not appreciate the satire in the last paragraph of my earlier comment, I wonder as to really why you are done. After all you did initially post that my post was just "strawmen & ignorance", but then change it to "OK man. I am done."

I ask you again; Is conducting a survey of Muslims in Britain by a reputable surveying organisation asking various questions of what Muslim think about living in Britain since the attacks in London in 2005, with their actual responces to these questions giving us the figures quoted. Is that now not only to be considered bigotry but ignorance now too in your eyes? Wow!

Or were you finished because you couldn't defend in anyway that 1 in 5 British Muslims think that any acts of terrorism committed by their fellow Muslims is OK by them and a legitimate tactic to air any grievences committed in their eyes by the west?

Just curious. BTW: you have a good one too. :)
 
Whilst you may not appreciate the satire in the last paragraph of my earlier comment, I wonder as to really why you are done. After all you did initially post that my post was just "strawmen & ignorance", but then change it to "OK man. I am done."

Ad hominem attacks are not satire, and strawman arguments are not debate. So rather than continue and be sucked into that kind of stupidity, I simply let it drop.

I ask you again; Is conducting a survey of Muslims in Britain by a reputable surveying organisation asking various questions of what Muslim think about living in Britain since the attacks in London in 2005, with their actual responces to these questions giving us the figures quoted. Is that now not only to be considered bigotry but ignorance now too in your eyes? Wow!

No. I consider it bigotry to condemn followers of Islam as terrorist etc by acts of the minority.

I suppose you missed that comment.

Or were you finished because you couldn't defend in anyway that 1 in 5 British Muslims think that any acts of terrorism committed by their fellow Muslims is OK by them and a legitimate tactic to air any grievences committed in their eyes by the west?

I explained why above. And I looked at the questions in PDF form at the surveys site...

British Muslims emphatically reject the proposition that Muslims
should keep themselves separate from non-Muslims (94%)

The vast majority (82%) feet that they belong to Britain even if a
few more (92%) feet that they belong to Islam


But lets continue...

Question: It is acceptable for religious or political groups to use violence.

73% said it is not acceptable.

I can understand why young British Muslims might want to carry out suiceide operations.

70% did say they could understand why. This does not mean they think it is acceptable and shown by the question above.

I have no idea how you came to the 1 in 5 think it's OK.

Here is the link directly to the PDF...

http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/conte...h/channel4_muslimsbritain_toplinefindings.pdf

Just curious. BTW: you have a good one too. :)

Hope this answers your questions.
 
I have no idea how you came to the 1 in 5 think it's OK.

.

Look at page 32 where the question “To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?” is posed.

The results if you read the figures quoted back are 11% strongly agree with this statement & another 11% tend to agree with this statement, which makes overall (11+11=22) that 22% of Muslims agree that the terrorist bombings in London in July 2005 were justified. If you will note further the survey also says in the box on the right of this chart on page 32 that younger Muslims (31% of them) agree with this sentiment even more. But let’s go with the overall 22% figure here shall we as we can work out actual figures from this. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but does not 22% of anything not then equate to roughly 1 in 5 of whatever it is you are equating? I think you will find that this is the case if you care to read page 32 fully & do some simple mathematics here.

And doing just a few more simple sums we find that 22% of the current Muslim population in Britain (2.5 Million) equals 550,000 of Muslims that think acts of terrorism are justified in the UK. Again divide 2.5 Million by roughly half a million and this gives us a figure of 1 in 5 again does it not?

Please correct me if my sums are wrong here, or the rest of the world does mathematics in any different way to the UK here?
 
Look at page 32 where the question “To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?” is posed.

The results if you read the figures quoted back are 11% strongly agree with this statement & another 11% tend to agree with this statement, which makes overall (11+11=22) that 22% of Muslims agree that the terrorist bombings in London in July 2005 were justified. If you will note further the survey also says in the box on the right of this chart on page 32 that younger Muslims (31% of them) agree with this sentiment even more. But let’s go with the overall 22% figure here shall we as we can work out actual figures from this. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but does not 22% of anything not then equate to roughly 1 in 5 of whatever it is you are equating? I think you will find that this is the case if you care to read page 32 fully & do some simple mathematics here.

And doing just a few more simple sums we find that 22% of the current Muslim population in Britain (2.5 Million) equals 550,000 of Muslims that think acts of terrorism are justified in the UK. Again divide 2.5 Million by roughly half a million and this gives us a figure of 1 in 5 again does it not?

Please correct me if my sums are wrong here, or the rest of the world does mathematics in any different way to the UK here?

I see, you are playing a numbers game.

31% of the youth should be no surprise, oh the angst of youth. Now overall 22% vs 73% who are against violence. So roughly Muslims in England are against violence for religious or political reasons at roughly 4 to 1.

It looks like you have nothing to worry about.

Edit meant 4 to 1 not 5.
 
Last edited:
I see, you are playing a numbers game.

31% of the youth should be no surprise, oh the angst of youth. Now overall 22% vs 73%who are against violence. So roughly Muslims in England are against violence for religious or political reasons at roughly 5 to 1.

It looks like you have nothing to worry about.


Actually, if you read page 32 correctly you will see that it is only 61% that don’t think that the bombings were justified. The other 17% didn’t know one way or the other. So if we do a little more maths that makes it much less than 1 in 5 Muslims actually and more like 1 in 3 Muslims. Further, if all 2.5 Million Muslims in the UK thought that acts of terrorism in Britain were justified & OK would you still feel that this was OK and not a threat to be concerned about at all in anyway seen as they are still at the moment only 4% of the British population so far?

And BTW: if quoting back statistics to give us a snap shot of what people think is playing the numbers game then so be it. It only reflects the truth of the numbers of people (in this case Muslims) that think these things. So if you feel that a figure of 1 in 5 (or 1 in 3 if we revise it more in light of the 17% who don’t know one way or the other if the London bombings were justified or not) of any population that think that acts of terrorism are OK and justified, and you think that this is nothing to worry about then I think you need to check your moral compass, because I think that most people would indeed think that this is NOT in fact OK.
 
Actually, if you read page 32 correctly you will see that it is only 61% that don’t think that the bombings were justified. The other 17% didn’t know one way or the other. So if we do a little more maths that makes it much less than 1 in 5 Muslims actually and more like 1 in 3 Muslims. Further, if all 2.5 Million Muslims in the UK thought that acts of terrorism in Britain were justified & OK would you still feel that this was OK and not a threat to be concerned about at all in anyway seen as they are still at the moment only 4% of the British population so far?

I read it correctly, but you keep trying to ignore the overall questions about violence in general.

61% did not agree with the attacks from page 32, 73% don't agree with any kind of violence from page I quoted.

Part of the reason they agreed with the attacks was because they feel they are under represented by a large degree.

And BTW: if quoting back statistics to give us a snap shot of what people think is playing the numbers game then so be it. It only reflects the truth of the numbers of people (in this case Muslims) that think these things. So if you feel that a figure of 1 in 5 (or 1 in 3 if we revise it more in light of the 17% who don’t know one way or the other if the London bombings were justified or not) of any population that think that acts of terrorism are OK and justified, and you think that this is nothing to worry about then I think you need to check your moral compass, because I think that most people would indeed think that this is NOT in fact OK.

Our founding fathers thought it was OK, remember that little rebellion? One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It all depends on who wins realistically speaking.

People who have a similar attitude to you are part of the problem. They are a minority and make up a small percentage of the population, but you sit in judgment of the majority by the minority. And so you condemn them all.
 
Our founding fathers thought it was OK, remember that little rebellion? One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It all depends on who wins realistically speaking.

What sort of "freedom" are the terrorists fighting for? Do you have any idea at all?

People who have a similar attitude to you are part of the problem. They are a minority and make up a small percentage of the population, but you sit in judgment of the majority by the minority. And so you condemn them all.

If several hundred thousand people in a rather confined land mass feel it's okay to kill you, then that should be of some concern.

The fact many of them, even the majority, do not want to kill you is good news indeed. It should make us all grateful.

But it might be time to have a serious look at the many thousands who do feel that killing innocent people is a justified act. It is these people we should be talking about.
 
What sort of "freedom" are the terrorists fighting for? Do you have any idea at all?

Nice strawman. Has nothing to do with what I said.

If several hundred thousand people in a rather confined land mass feel it's okay to kill you, then that should be of some concern.

Not when they make up 4% of the population and are a minority even among their own.

The fact many of them, even the majority, do not want to kill you is good news indeed. It should make us all grateful.

Not "even" the majority, it is the majority.

But it might be time to have a serious look at the many thousands who do feel that killing innocent people is a justified act. It is these people we should be talking about.

And how more serious does it have to be? I mean a war on terror is not good enough?

Many feel this way about governments etc everyplace. It is why society's have a little thing called laws.
 
Last edited:
If several hundred thousand people in a rather confined land mass feel it's okay to kill you, then that should be of some concern.

But it might be time to have a serious look at the many thousands who do feel that killing innocent people is a justified act. It is these people we should be talking about.

Agreed.

Generally speaking, there are hundreds of passive "sympathizers" for every one active supporter... and dozens or hundreds of active supporters for every one who is actually willing to take direct action as a terrorist.

The number of potential terrorists among the populace, then, could be as high as several hundred.

Considerably less than 100 pulled off 9/11. Ditto the Spanish subway bombings, and the Madrid attacks. The fact that all these attacks had some success at affecting public policy and popular attitudes should be a matter of concern.

The average Muslim doesn't take Jihad very seriously, no... but there's still a substantial minority that do, and sometimes their effects are out of proportion to their numbers.
 
Our founding fathers thought it was OK, remember that little rebellion? One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It all depends on who wins realistically speaking.

People who have a similar attitude to you are part of the problem. They are a minority and make up a small percentage of the population, but you sit in judgment of the majority by the minority. And so you condemn them all.


Congratulations! With that answer you have just being accepted into the Neville Chamberlain College of Appeasement! Well done!

First lesson is tomorrow, where you have to practice disembarking from a plane holding aloft a piece of paper and waving it around, whilst repeatedly saying the following mantra;

"I have here a piece of paper with a written promise from Mr Hitler, Chancellor of Germany. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Carry on with your wonderful appeasement work for any terrorist. I am sure that all your fellow Americans who died on 9/11 will apreaciate your sterling work for Islamic suicide bombers all around the world!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knighty2001 is now banned from this thread.
 
A guy that worked for me married his 1st cousin. He was Turkish and Christian. I know this is viewed as a primarily Muslim problem. I found this YouTube video from the BBC.

 
no matter what beliefs, inbreeding is disgusting... DISGUSTING!
 
no matter what beliefs, inbreeding is disgusting... DISGUSTING!

I agree whole heartedly - but I had the following thread last week:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/news-...cest-accused-bedding-young-relative-3yrs.html

...and apparently there are those on this board who view incest with one's daughter as a "personal choice", like buying a Toyota instead of a Chevy. But then actually marrying someone very close genetically like a 1st cousin is pretty ****ed up too - and then having kids and their kids marrying their cousins. Of course genetically it's eventually going to cause mental and physical issues. Then there's the "ick" factor on top of it.
 
Nice strawman. Has nothing to do with what I said.

On the contrary! It has everything to do with what you said. I'll quote it again.

You said "Our founding fathers thought it was OK, remember that little rebellion? One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It all depends on who wins realistically speaking".

So, again, who are these terrorist "freedom fighters" and what sort of freedom do you think they are fighting for? Or was your mention of freedom fighters the actual "straw dog"?


Not when they make up 4% of the population and are a minority even among their own.

You fail to address the numbers.
And how more serious does it have to be? I mean a war on terror is not good enough?

There is international terrorism and there has to be an international war on terror. The first place to fight this war is on the home front. We must recognize that there is a problem and try to deal with it. Denying that there is a problem does no one any good.
 
On the contrary! It has everything to do with what you said. I'll quote it again.

You said "Our founding fathers thought it was OK, remember that little rebellion? One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It all depends on who wins realistically speaking".

So, again, who are these terrorist "freedom fighters" and what sort of freedom do you think they are fighting for? Or was your mention of freedom fighters the actual "straw dog"?


You fail to address the numbers.


There is international terrorism and there has to be an international war on terror. The first place to fight this war is on the home front. We must recognize that there is a problem and try to deal with it. Denying that there is a problem does no one any good.


Exactamundo! Denying that just over half a million people in your own home country (Britain) who think that suicide bombing or any other sort of terrorism is a legitimate tactic to use because of any grievances with the UK is just sheer folly and stupidity. And trying to portray these people as freedom fighters is just sick too. These people only have one thing in mind, and that is to make any country they live in eventually part of Dar al-Islam.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Knighty, you were thread-banned. Continuing to post after a threadban can be up to 5 points per incidence. You need to honor the forum rules if you wish to continue posting on DP.
 
Congratulations! With that answer you have just being accepted into the Neville Chamberlain College of Appeasement! Well done!

First lesson is tomorrow, where you have to practice disembarking from a plane holding aloft a piece of paper and waving it around, whilst repeatedly saying the following mantra;

"I have here a piece of paper with a written promise from Mr Hitler, Chancellor of Germany. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
You cannot bargain with or appease somebody who wants your destruction. The Hitler/Poland deal is a prime example. It's why no peace process in the middle east will ever really work. Hamas is a terror group committed to Israel's destruction. The US, the UK and Israel need to stop thinking we can bargain with terrorists.
 
Last edited:
I think we've got a point of contact here. Though my position on human nature differs slightly, in that I believe a majority of Muslims are ordinary people because of human nature and despite their religion.


You talk about social and economic conditions but even there it's trying to put your thumb on quicksilver. Saudi Arabia can lay claim to being an unbelivably wealthy nation who can tip the equilibrium of the world economy if the leaders so wish. But ordinary people there are kept poor in Islam's homeland, in bondage of the tyranny of a brutal Sharia Law.
The Islamic World and the Christian World differ these days in that Islam has to be wedded to the State over there. Church and State are linked but not joined in the West. And given that Islam contains a slew of direct commands from God to kill Jews, brutalise women, subjugate Christians and even commit honour crimes 'if needs be', then the scripture damn well is as relevant to life over there as contemporary economic conditions!

And not a peep from the tolerant and merciful left. You know, the party of the common man.
 
And not a peep from the tolerant and merciful left. You know, the party of the common man.
You complain if people respond and you complain when they dont. When people respond you use it as an example of how everyone hates your views and when people dont respond you use it to show how much the other side really doesnt care.

Do you have to buy an extra seat on an airline for a confirmation bias that big or do you airmail it and do without for a few days?
 
You complain if people respond and you complain when they dont. When people respond you use it as an example of how everyone hates your views and when people dont respond you use it to show how much the other side really doesnt care.

Do you have to buy an extra seat on an airline for a confirmation bias that big or do you airmail it and do without for a few days?

Hilarious from a liberal hiding behind a moderate label. Hahahaha
 
There ARE more viewpoints out there than just conservative or liberal.

I rest my case

My case has been rested for a long time. Closet liberals are easy to spot.
 
Back
Top Bottom