And who exactly was polled? Muslims perhaps?

Posted by: igetit at February 19, 2007 9:07 AM

Here is the fruit of years of relentless politically correct indoctrination about Islam...

As fake as a $3 bill, as dangerous as a nest of pit vipers, as disheartening as a deep pool of qiucksand, the Fictive Reality of Islam is as serious as a heart attack.

Marshall McLuhan just twitched in his grave, and George Orwell is spinning like a top right now.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 19, 2007 9:11 AM

"But a significant minority across the world — and a narrow majority in Indonesia — said violent conflict between Islam and the West was inevitable."

I suppose that today we have only "non-violent conflict" with radical Islam?

And this is PC thinking run amok:

"Perhaps the strongest finding is that so many people across the world blame intolerant minorities on both sides for the tensions between Islam and the West,"

This is PC moral equivalency combined with whiney PC thoughts that we must have done something to make them mad.

What a crock of PC _____!

(Fill in the blank as you see fit.)

Posted by: FirePig at February 19, 2007 9:31 AM

Article:"WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service."

Well, world opinion doesn't know squat. Picking and choosing what percentages to discuss, is valueless. Look at the sources and that becomes evident, regardless of how "ambitious" the poll was.

Article:"There was also a consensus in most of these countries that intolerant minorities on both sides, rather than fundamental differences between the two cultures or intolerant minorities on one side or the other, were to blame for tensions between Islam and the West."

Well, the fictional idea of the tiny minority of extremists has been well-documented, used as a blanket defense by apologists when referring to the followers of Islam, but now the tone is enhanced to include intolerant minorities in the West as the problem as well, simply mutual misunderstanding.

Article: "The most common view in 24 of the 27 countries was that tensions arose from conflicts about political power and interests — 52 per cent of the total sample of 28,000 respondents held this opinion."

Ah, the obligatory direct slap at the United States. No non-American polling source is complete without it. So, US imperialism is, once again, the main source of tensions, with no mention of the part that the "cultural" ideology of Islam plays.

Valueless.

Posted by: awake at February 19, 2007 9:35 AM

Like saying yes, some Nazis are intolerant of Jews, the more violent ones... but hey, you must admit plenty of Jews are not very understanding and respectful of the Nazis

Posted by: poetcomic1 at February 19, 2007 9:38 AM

I posted this on an earlier thread but its relevent.

OT

The BBC has one of their usual multiculti love in articles about the percievd threat of Islam and is there a clash of civilazations? It is the usual drivel you can expect from the BBC but what is worth reading is the comments. Nearly all of them that have high reader recomendations are from those that have had their eyes opened to the Islamic threat.

http://xrl.us/haveyoursay

Well worth a few minutes to read and see what the moderators are letting through. This wouldnt have happened a year ago.

Posted by: km at February 19, 2007 08:38 AM

Posted by: km at February 19, 2007 9:43 AM

There are those who believe that American hegemony and the desire to promote democracy represent a de-facto attempt at world conquest.

I think they are half right, and we shouldn't shrink from the fact that there is a certain element of evangelism to our world view.

Denying this muddles the argument, which really should focus not on the fact that both we and Al Qaida have a vision for the world at large, but rather WHAT THAT VISION IS AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT IS IMPLEMENTED.

Posted by: Snippet at February 19, 2007 9:50 AM

pollsters are good at getting the answers they want by the way they ask questions. pollsters go to areas and times, and types of people they ask their questions. just ask the arab pollsters who is a trickster at the same time. do not trust polls, most people who are not educated liberal elites understand the evil of the koran.The regular people have their instincts still intact and understand evil when the see it. The so called liberal elites have talked themselves into oblivion. look at how the elites blinded themselves, before the French revolution, when the masses wake up, hopefully we wont have to go through that bloodshed. We need to throw out that PC yoke, and call a spade a spade. tell that emperor he is wearing no clothes.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 19, 2007 9:57 AM

radical Islam

Can somebody explain to me how so-called radical Islam is not normative Islam?

Having read the Koran (ugh!), Ishaq, and much of al Tabari and the Hadiths, I'm no expert but it seems to me that al Qaeda, PIJ, Hizbullah, Abu Sayyaf, the Moslem Brotherhood, and all the rest are just good solid Moslem boys trying to do what they were taught is right.

610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1848 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

Isn't that a noble thing on their part? So long as we accord Islam the status of a legitimate religion, then we must answer this question with a yes.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 19, 2007 9:59 AM

From the article:

"...commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service.

A "news" organisation that freely admits its bias here, and was recently accused of bias here and here.

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at February 19, 2007 10:10 AM

How scientific was this poll? Who in the general public really knows. But in any case; does it matter? Well to some degree; yes, it does let us know that there is still a lot of work to do to try and make people understand the dramatic and intrinsic differences between Islamic, and Western cultures.

Even practicing Muslims like Representative Keith Ellison for example still chooses to ignore the true, and violent history of Islam where slave trading was common practice by Muslims.
It was especially demonstrated when Ellison proclaimed that Thomas Jefferson sought enlightment by reading the Quran and indeed Jefferson did ,but not the enlightenment that Ellison would have you believe. His enlightenment was to understand how Muslims had to be dealt with and that you could not appease them. Thus he went after them militarily after reading the Quran.

"Know your enemy and know him well"

Posted by: Mackie at February 19, 2007 10:13 AM

Hmmmmmm.....A "clash" that was begun in 632 AD by followers of a phony phophet and continues to this day all around the world.......?
Nope that's not a clash, no sir. Move along now, nothing to worry about here.........

Posted by: n.a. palm at February 19, 2007 11:13 AM

GlobeScan did Poll it appears, their version

Muslims can answer there is no clash, because Islam is peaceful, and any blame is on the West.

The poll should have asked Muslims if they think the West, Bush, etc. are responsible for the clash.

Or ask Muslims if Christianity was responsible for the clash.

Then ask if Islam was.

Same for non-Muslims.

Also if Judaism was responsible for the clash.

The poll itself seems to have been too PC to detect non-PC attitudes.

Comments at Raw Story on same article

Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 19, 2007 11:14 AM

I agree with Mackie, it just proves that we all have a lot of work to do in raising awareness even further, keep at it chaps, the difference over the last two years is huge. Furthermore I happen to think that the 55% of Brits seeing Islam as a threat to Democracy is more representative then this poll which is likely to be heavily slanted to get this result.

And I am amazed at the BBC poll, as someone who has had lots of posts deleted by the moderators I can see that perhaps they have finally realized just how out of touch they are with what is left of the British.

Back to listening to Open Season, tell it like it is...

Posted by: Daffersd at February 19, 2007 11:16 AM

This is just an indication on how much work is still necessary. Let us keep talking to everyone we know, and they to all those they know, and hope more and more people gets alerted by the Islamic threat.

Posted by: calatrava at February 19, 2007 11:23 AM

Iranians, in US apparently, at WaPo's Post Global who say they will go back to Iran and fight US military if US fights Iran.

At Post Global, The folloqing question as posted by Fareed Zakaria.

"Polls show that many people in Europe think the U.S. is a greater threat than Iran. What should we make of this? Posted by Fareed Zakaria "

Iranians at WaPo who will fight for Iran if US goes to war

"I'd Take Khamenei Over Bush"

"If the U.S. waged a war against Iran, I'd absolutely go back and defend Iran. I can't let myself to sit down for a moment and watch America make a Baghdad out of Tehran.

Fortunately, I'm not alone."

"Iranian-born Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan is a blogger, journalist, and internet activist. "

" Persian Expat:

To OLD ATLANTIC

Yes, this kind of patriotic attitude and love for one's country is quite common among Iranians."

" From Darvaze Ghar:

To: OLD ATLANTIC

Yes, and fortunately he is not alone. We all will put our differences aside, go back and fight for our country and our extended family.

February 19, 2007 9:48 AM"

You can post at the above link at Post Global. Sometimes they take a while to clear your post. Longer posts may not get posted, so try to make it very short.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 19, 2007 11:29 AM

Always can trust the BBC to root out the the most ignorant twits across the world for their findings who can't figure out Iran has nukes and is making more nukes to blow up the west and the oil fields........Paris is burning as all Europe will be from Islamic unrest....and all those terrorist groups murdering people are just figments of the imagination.

The BBC needs desperately a good slap upside the head and Lady Thatcher to appoint an entire staff to actually cover the news.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 19, 2007 12:26 PM

"There are those who believe that American hegemony and the desire to promote democracy represent a de-facto attempt at world conquest.

I think they are half right, and we shouldn't shrink from the fact that there is a certain element of evangelism to our world view."

Snippet,

Exactly the type of fuzzy headed thinking that we need to expose as part of the problem.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 19, 2007 12:46 PM

From post above: "How scientific was this poll?" I do not believe this was a scientific poll. Scientific polls will invariably discuss the "margin of error" and the respondents will have been selected (ideally) at random. If the respondents were NOT selected at random, then you get biased samples. It is extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive to conduct a truly "scientific poll." It is far easier to simply ask, say, listeners or viewers or subscribers to the BBC. In other words, you poll your viewers. Then, of course, you'll get results like this. All skewed, all indicating that "everything's wonderful between Islam and the West!" But, if the respondents have not been selected at random, the poll is utter garbage. And I suspect that this is the case. Note that this "poll" queries people living in Nigeria and China. Yeah, now here are two states from which one can do a random sample and get what, exactly?? How many people are actually literate in Nigeria? How many people were randomly selected from rural areas of Nigeria?? (These are ALL possible factors of bias which skews the results -- thus you can ask your questions only of the Wealthy, Literate, Urban Nigerians -- the others "don't count" -- but by eliminating these segments, you get the skew -- thus, a garbage poll). Or, oh gee, the pollsters decided that only those listening or wealthy enough to subscribe to the Beeb should be contacted?? hmmm.. ditto for the Chinese -- just how free are people living in China able to say something "not nice", about anything?? What trash. But I guess the Beeb (like the CBC) has just gotta find ways of spending (squandering) taxpayers' dollars.

Posted by: J.S. at February 19, 2007 12:48 PM

This "opinion poll" was commissioned by the BBC World Service. The American who conducted the poll and possibly even some of those who were behind it, were just delighted with the skewed results, resulting from an absurd list of questions. The most absurd at all was the distinction that the questions offered simply took as a given: that there is a difference between disputes with a "religious" basis and those with a "political" basis. But this, in Islam, makes no sense. Religious promptings explain what for others, for Infidels, might be mistaken for merely "political" disputes.

The Muslims of Pakistan want control of Kashmir themselves, or at the very least want to end control by Hindu India of that part of Kashmir that is in Indian control (the rest is under Pakistani control), but is that a "political" desire or a "religious" one? It is, of course, a desire prompted by the tenets of Islam. It is wrong for lands once part of Dar al-Islam ever to be regained and ruled by non-Muslims. It is wrong for non-Muslims ever to dominate, in any way, Muslims. And if Kashmir were to be put in the hands of Muslims, that "dispute" would simply be ended and a new one pressed even more violently and firmly, with all the swelling triumphalism that the win in Kashimr would fill Muslim hearts: a claim to India itself, once under Muslim rule.

And is the Lesser Jihad to remove the Infidel nation-state of Israel, which only by this point the incredibly ignorant (such as Condoleeza Rice), or the viciously antisemitic (such as Jimmy Carter), or the simply incredibly misinformed (as are so many in Western Europe who over several decades have been subject to the drip-drip-drip of media propgaganda, beginning with such phrases, dinned into everyone, about a "Palestinian people," and a "Wets Bank," and of course "occupied" Arab land, "occupied" "Palestian" land, "occupied" Palestine, "occupied" this and "occupied" that which shows no understanding of the legal status, and legal, moral, and historic claim, of the Jews to the territory they now possess, or indeed to the territory they surrendered so foolishly to Egypt, and to which their title is at least as good as that of most countries in Europoe to the lands they won after World War II, or even after World War I -- such as, for example, the Sudtirol that, with a population that was 97% ethnic German, was given to Italy and has become -- quite rightly, by the way -- the Alto Adige.

Take a look at this absurd poll and who did the polling, and the way the questions were phrased. The whole thing stinks from top to bottom. But what did you expect? It's the BBC World Service. It's John Simpson. It's Judy Swallow of the hideous voice. It's Ian Lustig. It's Barbara Pleet, of the ready tear for Chairman Arafat. It's so many of them. It's the Foreign Office which still has special authority for the BBC World Service. It's Greg Dyke muttering about te truth-teller Mr. Aitken. It's the Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House, who become more incredible and more intolerable every single day. And not only in their absurd coverage of deplorable -- it's wonderful, isn't it, to hear the solemn "experts" interviewed by the BBC World Service, including Aziz Tamimi, the Hamas ranter, and the smooth Tariq Ramadan on "European Islam" and so much more that may seem at first to affect only the fate of Israel (which of course would be reason enough to deplore, and be sick, at what the unchecked and unhinged current BBC is doing), but that the nature of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims, is all being hidden from view, and that this effects the well-being and understanding of threats of Buddhists in Thailand, of Christians in black Africa, of Hindus in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and of course of all those in the nation-states of the Bilad al-kufr of Europe, including Great Britain itself, who are being led astray by those Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House and points east, west, north, and south, in glib guardian-reading, robert-fisk worshipping little, ever littler, because ever more unpleasant, confused, physically insecure, and untrue-to-itself and its own civilizational legacy, which is a considerable one and not to be tossed out quite so carelessly, England.

Posted by: Hugh at February 19, 2007 12:55 PM

I believe this survey is just as rigged as Saddam Hoessein's election. With the pro-immigration/leftist political parties (Tony Blair en Royal) on their way down in the polls and the rightwingers (Sarkozy in France, the Tories in England by example) on their way to the govermental seat, there is no way this can possibly be true.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at February 19, 2007 1:13 PM

"This "opinion poll" was commissioned by the BBC World Service. The American who conducted the poll and possibly even some of those who were behind it, were just delighted with the skewed results, resulting from an absurd list of questions."

- Hugh.

Do you have an example or excerpt of these questions?

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at February 19, 2007 1:16 PM

"What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others to think also"
- J. Caesar

So I believe this poll, because most people want to believe that things can be worked out. They think that Muslims are reasonable and are just willing to compromise for peace as they themselves are.

They don't have the knowledge of Islam that those who visit this web site have. This poll just indicates that we have a lot of work to do.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 19, 2007 1:31 PM

"The minority who believed tensions between Islam and the West arose from differences of religion and culture were much more likely to believe that violent conflict was inevitable."

One cannot read islamic texts, history or opinions and not believe that difference of religion was/is the prime motivating factor of violence perpetrated against non-moslems by moslems. Fighting to protect one's nation and culture against a belligerent opponent is not the same as being the perpetrator of the violence in the first place.

As for the carnard about the existence of a "tiny minority of extremists" the article implies that nearly 50% of moslems said it was impossible to find common ground...one assumes with infidels and non-islamic governments.

From the article: "A majority of the 5000 Muslims surveyed (52 per cent) said it was possible to find common ground, including majorities in Lebanon (68 per cent), Egypt (54 per cent) and Nigeria (63 per cent)" and "The belief that violent conflict was inevitable was somewhat more common among Muslims (35 per cent) than Christians (27 per cent) or others (27 per cent)".

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at February 19, 2007 2:04 PM

WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service.

Actually, this is a very sound premise; there will never be a clash between these civilisations.

Why not?

Because the West will simply cave in a surrender.

You see, it's all very mathematical; the rate of Western surrender to islamic civilisation is directly proportional to the amount of terrorist--uhh, errr -- "jihadic expression" of cultural values.

It's kind of like the mentality and overall intelligence of Western leaders -- SIMPLE.

Posted by: witness at February 19, 2007 2:18 PM

WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service.

Actually, this is a very sound premise; there will never be a clash between these civilisations.

Why not?

Because the West will simply cave in a surrender.

You see, it's all very mathematical; the rate of Western surrender to islamic civilisation is directly proportional to the amount of terrorist--uhh, errr -- "jihadic expression" of cultural values.

It's kind of like the mentality and overall intelligence of Western leaders -- SIMPLE.

Posted by: witness at February 19, 2007 2:19 PM

Here is a more complete breakdown of the statistics, country by country.

It would have been interesting to see a breakdown by religion, but that was not to be. And, as others noted, the questions were chosen not to clarify, but to obfuscate.

It's hard to look past all the "An unbelievably vast overwhelming majority (26%) believe that some common ground can be found, while only a teeny-tiny-fractional-speck-of-unimportant-minority (25%) believe that conflict is inevitable" BS, but it looks like consistently 25-35% of people all over the world believe conflict is inevitable. [It must mean greater conflict, because the current conflict is not exactly chopped liver.]

BTW, I wonder what percentage of Americans thought, the day before Pearl Harbor, that "common ground" could be found, that conflict could be avoided? I doubt that even 25% of Americans thought that U.S. involvement was inevitable at that time. Then, as now, we lived in a world of wishes.

Posted by: special_guest at February 19, 2007 2:49 PM

Woe is us! THe People are sadly uneducated - imagine locating a MidEast country in Australia? How sad is that? (Native Born Americans polled in the street).

200 yrs ago we needed a Jefferson ( faults and all) and those other Founders that could lead us by the hand, with a SPiritual background, to help us.

Where are they now? We surely need them today.

We haven't - in historical memory - needed as much help as today.

Help us, God!

Posted by: allat at February 19, 2007 2:56 PM

"Intolerant minorities on both sides? And just who is sawing off heads and calling for world conquest in Kentucky or West Virginia or Bend, Oregon?"

We just don't get it. An intolerant minority on their side wants sharia and head-chopping. An intolerant minority on our side wants them to stop. How racist and islamophobic of us!

Posted by: Lili at February 19, 2007 3:26 PM

The survey I would like to see asked:

[Based on phone number, the country and state/province/region is already known]

Good evening Sir/Madame. I am calling you today on behalf of JW/DW to ask you some questions having to do with current events. First, some questions about you:
- What religion do you practice?
- What role does religion play in your daily life [none, a small role, a large role]?
- In the neighborhood in which you live, what is the majority religion?
- In the country in which you live, how much tolerance is there for minority religions [none, a little, a lot, total]?

- Do you believe there is a global conflict occurring today?
[If yes]
- Who do you believe are the participants in the conflict?
- Who do you think is most responsible for instigating the conflict?
- Do you think the conflict will escalate or de-escalate in the near future?
[If no]
- Do you think a global conflict will occur in the near future? [if yes, same questions as above, put into the future tense]

- I'm going to ask you some questions about several religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism. Please tell me how compatible you believe each of the following is with each religion:
[Ask each question for each religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism.] Please rate on a scale of Completely Compatible, Somewhat Compatible, Somewhat Incompatible, Completely Incompatible:
- Using violence to subjegate non-believers
- Designating equal rights for men and women
- Ability to leave the religion
- Separation of religion and government
- Allowing freedom of thought and scientific discovery
- Tolerance for other religious beliefs
- Allowing deceipt and deception
- Mandates global domination

- Now, what is your overall impression of each of the following religions [Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism], would you say Very Favorable, Somewhat Favorable, Neutral, Somewhat Unfavorable, or Very Unfavorable [ask for each religion].

Thank you for your time.

Posted by: special_guest at February 19, 2007 3:32 PM

Lili said

How racist and islamophobic of us!

Yes, by insisting on keeping our heads attached to our bodies, we are interfering with their ability to practice their religion as laid out in the Qur'an and as shown in the example of Mohammad. We are the intolerant ones.

Posted by: special_guest at February 19, 2007 3:35 PM

This is irrelevent. Our Muslim friends are attempting the impossible. They want to force the west into allowing them to have what they want but at the same time they must try and maintain the lie that Islam is peaceful - this strategy will ultimately fail - they will overstep the mark - the graet lie about Islam will fall away and they will be crushed - this stupid poll means nothing and I would put no faith in the BBC which is totally unrepresentative of the british people.

Posted by: johnmac at February 19, 2007 4:58 PM

Immigration Questionnaire questions.

Some good questions suggested above for the poll can be used for the immigration questionnaire.

Another question suggested by the Iranians at Post Global, linked to above is whether if the US invaded their home country without provocation they would go back and fight for their homeland.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 19, 2007 4:59 PM

One or the other civilization will be completely destroyed and the other will survive. Because of the very teachings of Islam and the attitude of the Muslims themselves, there is no other possible outcome.

You’re right, Roller, except maybe for referring to Islam as a civilization, but I'm sure you're using that word agnostically.

With some few periods of rest, the expansionist dynamic of Islam has persisted, and now shows signs of expanding scope and accelerating penetration, what with the Internet, satellite TV, air travel, insane Marxist politics, foreign aid, arms sales from Commie Russia and Commie China, etc.)

I was gonna disagree with you and posit the idea of en masse deprogramming as a slim possibility, but to do that would be to destroy their civilization, wouldn’t it. Such a thing would never work anyway.

But the bloody borders have now been greatly complicated with advanced Western countries bringing in millions of Moslems to suckle from the swollen teat of the welfare state. Now, we civilized folk are surrounded, with aggression Moslems coming both from within and from without.

Our forthcoming scenario will be kinda like the little poisonous dinosaurs who nipped away at the obese computer programmer near the end of Jurassic Park. The little ones among us will distract and weaken us, poison us, and then the big T-Rex will burst in from outside to deliver the real fireworks, maybe in the form a hidden dirty bomb, or a missile-borne EMP blast, or even something worse.

It's as if we're playing on a ping-pong table with a big downward tilt. We don’t have them surrounded like they do us. Hell, not only are we encouraging them, we’re funding them. But in the middle stage of the clash the table will go flat again, and then we can make our fate — if we have the resolve to do so.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 19, 2007 5:36 PM

" . . . Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations[?] . . . "

The clash is in full swing--and it ISN'T between two civilizations, but between civilization and utter savagery.

What wants to call itself an "Islamic civilization" is not civilized but based on the convoluted ramblings of an uncivilized brigand who had an unnatural concern with keeping his privates and nether orifice clean.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 19, 2007 5:43 PM

The Big Brother Censors (BBC) have chosen to strike my post so I will place it in a more "user-friendly" environment:

The survey question poses a false choice: Islam is as much a political system as a religion so the "tension" is grounded in both politics and religion. Conflict is inevitable because the Qur'an clearly prescribes that where Muslims have political power, non-Muslims are to be given a choice between conversion, subjugation, or death. Observant Muslims consider the Qur'an sacrosanct and immutable so tell me please, where is the opportunity for compromise and reconciliation?

Posted by: Charles Martel at February 19, 2007 6:30 PM

"Big majorities in Australia, the United States, Canada, Lebanon, Mexico and most European countries believed common ground can be found between the Muslim and Western cultures."

This is bad news, but consider the source.

Posted by: TexasInfidel at February 19, 2007 7:00 PM

"Big majorities in Australia, the United States, Canada, Lebanon, Mexico and most European countries believed common ground can be found between the Muslim and Western cultures."

One more time -- because the "poll" is NOT scientific -- NO ONE CAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "BIG MAJORITIES" -- this is utter RUBBISH. You cannot say this. There is NO evidence to support such a claim.

If you look at the individual countries which some unidentified agency "polled" -- say, Nigeria, China, Indonesia, etc. How many people live in China, hmmm? How many? 1 Billion, 313 Million. Now, I ask you, if you want to claim to speak on behalf of the Chinese people, how many people would you need to poll, hmmm??? There are actually tables one can consult (if you'd care to do a scientific poll). But, let me tell ya, you'd need a hell of a lot more than 1000 people (does anyone realize just how expensive it would be?). SOOOO, since the sample size is gonna be minuscule, YOU CANNOT draw ANY conclusions -- the ERROR rate is simply far too high -- it makes your "findings" utterly meaningless. Understood? Ditto for Nigeria, with a population of around 130 Million. Ditto for Indonesia -- around 200 million (?). Again, it's laughable, and outrageous that anyone would claim to speak on behalf of "Indonesians" (unless, of course, you're dealing with the LUNATICS and MOONBATS at the BBC).

Posted by: J.S. at February 19, 2007 9:12 PM

As someone who frequently has remarks deleted from BBC-from this Bogus Poll too-but did read other Posts & majority BELIEVED CONFLICT WAS INEVITABLE.Actually was impressed by number who knew ISLAM MEAN'T 'SUBMISSION' NOT 'PEACE.'
Hugh is spot on.What can you expect from the likes of John Simpson & Barbara Plett?
Do think though some Journo Hacks are getting a bit anxious.Despite deleting many posts & 'repeating' those of crazed Liberals,they must have noticed the numbers of Native Brits protesting against Islam. Also BBC's ratings continue to fall...

Posted by: Morgane at February 19, 2007 9:51 PM

"Do you have an example or excerpt of these questions?"
-- from a posting above

No more than anyone who reads the story above, or heard the news item on the BBC, or clicks on the link. But isn't that enough? Isn't it enough to know that the questions were worded so as to force those asked to distinguish, falsely, between what are "political disputes" and what are described as "religious disputes" when, in Islam, "religious disputes" or rather the tenets of Islam, give rise to, necessarily explain, all those seemingly "political disputes" (Israel, Kashmir, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, southern Sudan, Nigeria, the Balkans, etc.) that can be found all over this giddy globe?

Posted by: Hugh at February 19, 2007 10:26 PM

It doesn't matter if most people believe that common ground can be reached by muslims and people in the west.

In 5 to 10 years time, people will change their minds.

It's early days in the war between Islam and the west.

Posted by: Voltaire at February 20, 2007 12:28 AM

We can only hope that thinking people, and I still believe they are out there, will see a red flag here.

Why is there a need to even ask these questions?

If there is no problem, why poll people to see what their opinions are about the problem?

We can only hope that some people who have their heads in the sand will say 'clash of civilizations, what, where, when?," and when the MSM tells them there is nothing to look at here, move along, the will do the same thing they do when there is a dead body on the street, look harder.

Posted by: auntbea at February 20, 2007 8:14 AM

BBC Bias exposed from the inside
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436794&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Posted by: ovinesongs at February 20, 2007 10:33 AM

It is worthwhile noting that the poll showed people more likely to blame islam than the west for the clash. The poll asked what was the cause of the clash, and offered "intolerant islamic minority" as one choice, and "intolerant western minority" as another. The report gave the results for 21 of the countries, and the islamics were assigned a much higher share of the blame; on average, islam was blamed by 13% and the west by 8%. Germany blamed islam over the west 20% to 4%, and Italy 18% to 1%. On the other side Turkey blamed the west 20% over islam 2%, and the UAE the west 11% over islam 7%. But even in some islamic countries, islam was asigned a greater share of the responsibility: Egypt blamed islam 20% more than the west 15%, and Indonesia islam 28% vs. 4% for the west.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 21, 2007 8:55 AM