Well for those amongst us that have trouble reading:

SIX years after the 9/11 terror attacks that destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York and killed almost 3000 people, a majority of American Muslims do not believe the attacks were carried out by Arabs. And more than one-quarter of young US Muslims believe suicide bombings can be justified in some circumstances.
These shocking and tragic findings, which come from the Pew Research Centre, tell us much about why the war against Islamist terror is going to last for generations.

You will notice his claims (the bit in red because everyone know red is important)

Now the actual findings of the Pew Reseach Centre:

Key findings include:

• Overall, Muslim Americans have a generally positive view of the larger society. Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live.
• A large majority of Muslim Americans believe that hard work pays off in this society. Fully 71% agree that most people who want to get ahead in the United States can make it if they are willing to work hard.
• The survey shows that although many Muslims are relative newcomers to the U.S., they are highly assimilated into American society. On balance, they believe that Muslims coming to the U.S. should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.
• Roughly two-thirds (65%) of adult Muslims in the U.S. were born elsewhere. A relatively large proportion of Muslim immigrants are from Arab countries, but many also come from Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Among native-born Muslims, roughly half are African American (20% of U.S. Muslims overall), many of whom are converts to Islam.
• Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.
• A majority of Muslim Americans (53%) say it has become more difficult to be a Muslim in the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Most also believe that the government "singles out" Muslims for increased surveillance and monitoring.
• Relatively few Muslim Americans believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, and many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks.

You will notices how the Pew Centre's finding appear to be more in depth (gosh) and paint a somewhat less bleak picture than you average Aussie redneck with a word processor, now I am not claiming that the one point he chose to use from the 100 pages of the report is misrepresented I am simply claiming he chose the only bit of data that suited his argument hence bias.

So just for you BD since I know how much comprehension means to you, its just another piece of biased media trash and the only reason you and your merry band like it is that it says what you want to hear.

Now how about showing me where I said he misinterpreted empirical data because from my magical ability to scroll up what I see is a comment about only using some aspects of peoples work leading to accusations of bias which I am accusing him of and oddly enough given the intense level of whining about the quality of media reporting on these boards and in particular from yourself I am a little surprised you are not supporting me on this or is it a case of it only being bad media if you don't agree with it?

Show me where I said you said "empirical" and I'll change my name to MontyB Jr.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Show me where I said you said "empirical" and I'll change my name to MontyB Jr.

I note the change of subject as an acceptance as of my point and as I would never want to mistaken for you or vice versa I will concede your point on "empirical" as that was in fact our local "man of the cloth" not yourself.

Originally Posted by senojekips

The Muslims, like the Jews have a strong streak of the "poor downtrodden me" syndrome which they attempt to enhance every time something is done to a Muslim by a non Muslim, regardless if it is for good or evil.

I have never found this to be so in my experience of Jews, who have assimilated brilliantly in Britain, and have enthusiastically embraced all things British. With the exception of a small Hassedic group, it would not be possible to seperate Jew from Christian here. Hindus have also made themselves very acceptable in all respects and are highly successful. Our Jews are proudly patriotic towards Britain, their home country. They come across as fiercely independent. I have never seen a Jew cry or take a dive here, and they are able to live side by side anywhere in the world with anyone, I understand.

Other than that, I take your point, and would add that, politically, as far as their approach to the world is concerned, this is a very well developed strategy. They are tremendous at the mind games.

To group Jews and Moslems together as you describe would not, in my opinion, be correct. And i have to say that every American Jew I ever met wore the Stars and Stripes on their heart.

Just making the point that the two groups are at different ends ofthe spectrum in this respect, in my experience.
.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I note the change of subject as an acceptance as of my point and as I would never want to mistaken for you or vice versa I will concede your point on "empirical" as that was in fact our local "man of the cloth" not yourself.

Because your initial criticism lacked specifics or examples, I was genuinely curious as to what you found in the data that contradicted his bias or ultimate conclusion. I worded my question fairly politely.

The answer that came back was good in that it was an answer, but sadly, it doesn't invalidate the commentator's concerns. Your "magical ability to scroll" and to "read" deserted you on this occasion in your retort to the wrong person. I'll put this wobbly down to you still recovering perhaps from that nasty bruising Gator delivered to you on immigration.

As you are also quite plainly a member of the "For those amongst us who have trouble reading" Club, welcome among us who are human and falible and biased. For all our faults, we know the rising of a dangerous enemy from within and do not want Western society to make the same mistakes as....say the Germans of the 1920's - wow arn't those poor Nazi's misunderstood and their complaints are fairly reasonable and boy are they growing in number. The Polish and Austrians and Spanish and Maltese did not repel Islam centuries ago from their borders because of bias or that the Mohammedans had bad breath - there was a reason why Christian or free thinking Europeans preferred Christianity, warts and all, to domination by Islamic law. You Monty are enjoying the fruits of their victories won long ago.

I am passing on the spat between Padre and Monty B, but I must applaud Padre's brief history lesson. It has been that way for hundreds of years. Repeating myself, our enemies are dedicated to, and are expert at, the long game. The danger is to underestimate that. That is why, over the centuries the answer has been to squash them as they raised their militant heads. The British regiments constantly served 10 year long stints of pinning down. Leave England at 16 years old, return at 26, like my father in law and my step-father on the North West Frontier. The British understood so well and were so blase that they were quite happy to wake up ar reveille READY SHAVED by the locals! Want to try that guys?

Originally Posted by Padre

Because your initial criticism lacked specifics or examples, I was genuinely curious as to what you found in the data that contradicted his bias or ultimate conclusion. I worded my question fairly politely.

The answer that came back was good in that it was an answer, but sadly, it doesn't invalidate the commentator's concerns. Your "magical ability to scroll" and to "read" deserted you on this occasion in your retort to the wrong person. I'll put this wobbly down to you still recovering perhaps from that nasty bruising Gator delivered to you on immigration.

Heres a small problem for you though. I don't think Gator gave me a bruising for one simple reason. For the most part I agree with his views on immigration I am just not quite as extreme in expressing those views. I think a lot of what you saw there was me thinking he was joking about the mine field idea hence the recommendation of a moat and alligators so in the end while Gator and myself may disagree on the method of cure we don't disagree on the need for a cure.

As far as your original material goes I don't agree since he chose to use references ie the Pew Research Centre to validate his work then his "concerns" are measurable against their findings and I am sorry his views don't necessarily stack up with theirs therefore his "concerns" invalidate themselves.

However all this aside you are once again making an argument based on your interpretation of what I said, in fact (if you go back and read what I posted) the terms I used were:
- "Interesting although as usual some artistic license has been taken by the writer" Which is another way of saying he has twisted the information not necessarily misrepresented but as we all know a simple change in context can change the entire message meaning.

And:-

- One of the negatives about only quoting aspects of other peoples work is that you open yourself up to claims of bias which in turn reduces the credibility of anything accurate in subsequent claims. Which means if you are not prepared to use both pro and con information in your argument when it is clearly available and relevant then your argument is biased.

Now based on your reply to my original post I would ask you where I mentioned anything about him misrepresenting empirical data?

What I do claim is that through his failure to put forward an impartial view of his references findings he has produced what amounts to little more than another biased media report which given this boards vitriol toward the media as being biased should be receiving the same treatment as any other biased bit of reporting.

The Polish and Austrians and Spanish and Maltese did not repel Islam centuries ago from their borders because of bias or that the Mohammedans had bad breath - there was a reason why Christian or free thinking Europeans preferred Christianity, warts and all, to domination by Islamic law. You Monty are enjoying the fruits of their victories won long ago.

Interestingly enough I don't here a lot of people complaining they missed the dark ages or inquisition either don't you find it odd that your average Pole, Austrian, Spaniard and Maltese isn't complaining that they haven't been burnt at the stake or tortured recently by their local clergy?
Perhaps people are just ungrateful?

I would suggest that the "fruits of victory" I am enjoying come not only from the defeat of Islamic law in Europe but also the European rejection of being ruled by any religion including Christianity.

Monty,

May I recommend two books for you to digest that are not recommended for the purpose of conversion or propaganda, but that you might have a more informed understanding of the contribution of Christian principles and activity to western civilization, the legacy of which you do enjoy benefits.

1. "The Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark

2. "Those Terrible Middle Ages" by Regine Pernoud

Originally Posted by Padre

Monty,

May I recommend two books for you to digest that are not recommended for the purpose of conversion or propaganda, but that you might have a more informed understanding of the contribution of Christian principles and activity to western civilization, the legacy of which you do enjoy benefits.

1. "The Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark

2. "Those Terrible Middle Ages" by Regine Pernoud

Actually I have read The Rise of Christianity and I suspect we came to somewhat different conclusions on its message.
To be perfectly honest I am not sure it is applicable to your argument or the argument in general. I have to admit I have seen Those Terrible Middle Ages but it sounds more like a Monty Python title (which isn't a bad thing).

Well, put "The God Delusion" down next to "The Da Vinci Code" for a second, and go have a read of Pernoud's book. Not as funny as the "Life of Brian" or "Black Adder," but still....