Just listening to this... It's sounds like the wording of these polls was twisted around, and the term "radical" was used very loosely. It sounds like he has an idea of what he's talking about but the way it's presented is like a damn sprint commercial, useless percentages being thrown around trying to convince you of something that might be true, but in the end, isn't true.
This was by far one of the most idiotic statistical correlations I have seen. With this logic, 6.5 billion people eat meat, and to eat meat you have to kill something. Terrorists kill people, so 6.5 billion people should be terrorists and that is a fact, and you are a terrorist too if you argue otherwise.
Not at all. He was very clear that there is a distinct dictionary difference between radicals and terrorists. Members of any religion can be radical. I've encountered radical Christians, and let's be honest, the more radical Jains become, the safer they are. I mean, when's the last time you heard of radical Christians killing anybody? I personally think his definition of a radical is spot on. Anyone who thinks killing of any kind, save for in self defence, is monstrous. Let me tell you, killing civilians is not self-defence.
Also just something to keep in mind, Muslim woman and children have no political voice and likely did not participate in these poles, and the likely hood that everyone voted who could vote is extremely unlikely, so the results from polling an entire country are most likely skewed in a less than favorable result
My main point is that it isn't as small of a minority as the media makes it out to be. And these are scary statistics nonetheless, and who's to say that women in these countries don't feel the same way?
Just one question, any sources for your claims of women and children not being able to partake in these surveys (and according to you, any aspect of life apparently) other than biased personal opinion? Or more so, do you know any Muslims personally? I love how people can paint a whole group of people a single color by their own opinion, while even Siamese twins can have totally different personalities. And I love the fact that it is ok to be radical of <insert some group you are ok with> and not ok to be a radical of <the group we don't like>. Does he even bother to explain what "strict Sharia rule" means? And how many thousands of interpretation it can get. Stop believing everything you hear, and start reading objective sources.
And one last comment, I also love how he makes a "clear distinction" between radicals and terrorists, but then goes about to hint, well just exactly that. You know it is exactly like when people say, I am not racist but...<Insert the most racist and bigotted thing you can imagine here>. It simply does not make it any different to the listener to be honest.
Well damn, I can't help it, one more comment, "I personally think his definition of a radical is spot on. Anyone who thinks killing of any kind, save for in self defence, is monstrous. Let me tell you, killing civilians is not self-defence."
Donald Trump says (and he was not the only one of the US presidential candidates to do so) that US should carpet bomb Irak and Syria (which would kill many many civilians). Since he has the support of approximately half of US, I derive that he and his supporters are all radicals. Would you aggree? If not I might start to suspect you are being hypocrytical...
No, I would not agree, killing civilians is not ok, no matter the circumstances. However, you have to admit that the difference between civilian and combatant can sometimes be blurred. That's what makes the "War on Terror" such a difficult one, because we aren't fighting a distinct uniformed military. I personally think we should pull all of our troops out and scuttle any equipment we leave. We need to fix our own nation before we start "fixing" the problems that, admittedly, we(meaning the US government) caused. We need to cut out dependence on foreign oil(and probably on our own oil too), and we need to feed and house our own citizens before we go around trying to feed and house other nations.
@shurikkaru
Absolutely why I take his analysis with a fat grain of salt.
He might still be right (big MIGHT) but I don't think using statistics as your sole source of correspondence is the best kind of argument.
A radical Muslim wants to kill you.
A moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to kill you (and supports hi financially and morally).
You open minded people are going to show your tolerance and compassion right up until we have Sharia law. There are enclaves in Michigan that are self-governing by Muslims, and the police don't go there. The Feminists beleive that a man should be responsible for his actions while drunk but a woman should not be, but all that will fall on deaf ears when "honor klillings are sometimes justified."
Donald Trump says (and he was not the only one of the US presidential candidates to do so) that US should carpet bomb Irak and Syria (which would kill many many civilians). Since he has the support of approximately half of US, I derive that he and his supporters are all radicals. Would you aggree? If not I might start to suspect you are being hypocrytical...
Absolutely why I take his analysis with a fat grain of salt.
He might still be right (big MIGHT) but I don't think using statistics as your sole source of correspondence is the best kind of argument.
A moderate Muslim wants the radical Muslim to kill you (and supports hi financially and morally).
You open minded people are going to show your tolerance and compassion right up until we have Sharia law. There are enclaves in Michigan that are self-governing by Muslims, and the police don't go there. The Feminists beleive that a man should be responsible for his actions while drunk but a woman should not be, but all that will fall on deaf ears when "honor klillings are sometimes justified."