Think there's any Muslims who speak Arabic? Maybe a couple?
--- because those people ARE Semites by definition, shit-for-brains.
And by definition anti-Semitism does not and never has referred to hatred of the Semitic linguistic category but does now and has always referred exclusively to hatred of Jews, you stupid ignorant cunnt.
Se·mit·ic
səˈmidik/
adjective
adjective:
Semitic
- 1.
relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
- 2.
relating to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
Idiot.
BULLSHIT. It found no such thing. No such question was in that poll and this bullshit has already been disproven, including right here in this thread. So you're a baldfaced liar.
Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. Show us the question number/page number where that is.
A new ICM poll has discovered
two out of three Muslims in Britain would not give the government any information if they knew details about a terror plot.
These disturbing poll results seem to indicate the government’s counter-terrorism program, named Prevent, is unlikely to provide much usable information on active threats, if it passes along any information at all, The Express reports.
2/3rds Of British Muslims Wouldn’t Tell Government About A Terror Plot
"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
TWO thirds of British Muslims would not inform the police if they thought that somebody close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathisers, according to a poll.
Two thirds of British Muslims would not give police terror tip-offs | UK | News | Express.co.uk
Are you completely illiterate, or just born stupid? Let's not rule out both.
I just asked you to cite the
Question number and/or page number where this citation was. All you did was trot in some links to bullshit sources that lied about this fake question, which does not exist.
I also told you straight out that I busted this fake news several days ago. You could have read it in post 1151. But noooooooo You had to dig yourself even deeper.
Not only does that question not even exist ---- you didn't bother to read the poll results.
I did. And that's why I know a **** of a lot more than you.
Here it is --
Question 37, page 323. You can read it for yourself.:
"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)
The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)
Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.
The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.
In other words
of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three.
Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics.
ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. Direct personal intervention was preferred over indirect third-party take-a-number intervention. ******* DUH.
And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow
more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.
In Syria, specifically.
That's it, the end. They said
personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.
So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent
"would not" report it to the police?
Again that was asserted here:
"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:
and here:
Two thirds of British Muslims would not give police terror tip-offs
Where does that finding appear in this poll?
NOWHERE. That question does not exist.
Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why you can't answer my pointed question --- you didn't even bother to read your own source material. And in a typical display of the same ignorance, your bottom headline is a triple-lie --- not only did no one say they "would not", the question was never about a "terror plot" NOR was it about informing "the government". NEITHER OF THOSE QUESTIONS IS EVEN ASKED.
When is it ever going to sink in to you Fake News Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo?
Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically
"in Syria".
Nowhere does it refer to "informing the government'. And
nowhere does it ask the exclusionary "what would you NOT do". There's no way for a respondent to say they "would not alert the police" since there's
NO SUCH QUESTION IN THE POLL. ANYWHERE.
Go ahead illiterate moron --- try to prove me wrong.
Here's the report in its entirety. All 615 pages of it. Find me anywhere that question is so stated. Fricking IDIOT.
Bonus track, bigot-boi: On this post:
On theocracy the overwhelming majority of Muslims surveyed want Sharia to be the official law of the land:
That question came up in the same poll above. Sharia support came in at a whopping 1 (one) percent. That sound like an "overwhelming majority" to you? I could tell you what page that's on but **** it, slacker, you're already behind. Go get off your lazy ass and do some homework for a change.
Again --- quit being so goddam gullible for every Pam Geller who wants to play you like a three-dollar sword-swallowing banjo just because she thinks it looks funny.