← Back to context

Comment by hmcq6

3 days ago

> All true, very true. Of course the other bunch will slaughter you for drawing a cartoon.

You're confusing Al-Qaeda with Muslims.

10 comments

hmcq6

Reply
kgwgk  3 days ago

> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% [of British Muslims] agreed that such violence was never justifiable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31293196

You’re confusing Al-Qaeda with one third of Muslims living in a Western country.

  • hmcq6  3 days ago

    > Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.

    > But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.

    > Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.

    24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

    But the better argument is that 24% of people saying "it could be justified" is that it actually could be justified.

    Should I punch everyone who includes Nazi symbology in their art? No.

    Should I punch a Nazi who repeatedly promotes his ideology through his art? Yes.

    • kgwgk  3 days ago

      I missed that figure, I stand corrected.

      So it’s “only” one fourth that told that it may be justified - the rest up to one third didn’t confirm nor deny that it may be justified.

      It’s also very reassuring that maybe they don’t find that violence is justified when you publish only one image of muhammad. Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.

      Here is a long-time offender: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia...

      Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.

      5 replies →

dralley  3 days ago

The aperture is wider than just those who are already members of some terrorist organization or other.

e.g. the killing of Samuel Paty