UK facing most severe terror threat ever, warns MI5 chief

[i claudius]

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world; there were 19 hijackers involved in Sept 11 attacks. Are you seriously suggesting that those 19 were representative of the thoughts and desires of 1.6 billion?

No but millions cheered

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[7by7]

17 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

 Wrong an unelected body of men in the EU make the laws, for Britain , We cannot deport people who want to harm us, because the Eu says THEY have human rights,

 

1) All EU laws are made by elected representatives.

 

2) Human rights are nothing to do with the EU; like many people you are confusing the EU with the European Charter on Human Rights and it's court; institutions which existed well before the EU, or EEC, of which most European countries are members of, not just EU or EEA members, and of which the UK is a founder member.

 

3) Brexit will not effect the UK's obligations and the ECHR and the rulings of the ECtHR.

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, i claudius said:

No but millions cheered

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 Millions?

 

Really?

 

I am not denying that some in the Middle East did; but millions?

 

Any evidence, or are you going on hearsay?

[i claudius]

 Millions?

 

Really?

 

I am not denying that some in the Middle East did; but millions?

 

Any evidence, or are you going on hearsay?

I can ask you the same question or are you going on hearsay They didnt?

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

 

Quote

3) Brexit will not effect the UK's obligations and the ECHR and the rulings of the ECtHR.

 

No, but it takes the UK out of the jurisdiction of the equally pernicious European Court of Justice, which is the EU's own human rights court and has prevented the UK from deporting hundreds of terrorists, murderers, rapists, and organised crime associates.

 

The UK could then, if it wished, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and avoid the rulings of its court, the ECtHR.

 

That would be a start, and if the British civil service has the ability to reimpose rigorous border controls for the UK, which is unclear, then it would have achieved some solid results in trying to claim back its sovereignty.

 

Which is, in fact, what Brexit Leave voters were voting for.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Millions?

 

Really?

 

I am not denying that some in the Middle East did; but millions?

 

Any evidence, or are you going on hearsay?

I can ask you the same question or are you going on hearsay They didnt?

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

You made a definite statement

2 hours ago, i claudius said:

No but millions cheered (9/11)
 

so what evidence do you have to back this up?

 

As for evidence that, whilst some did, it wasn't millions, you are, of course, asking me to prove a negative, to prove that something didn't happen, and when I can't, you will doubtless say that you are right and I am wrong!

 

But the claim by Trump that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be untrue: Fact-checking Trump's claim that thousands in New Jersey cheered when World Trade Center tumbled.

[7by7]

50 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, but it takes the UK out of the jurisdiction of the equally pernicious European Court of Justice, which is the EU's own human rights court and has prevented the UK from deporting hundreds of terrorists, murderers, rapists, and organised crime associates.

The ECJ rules on matters of EU law. It has ruled on the deportation of EEA nationals from one member state to their home state, but has not, indeed cannot, rule on the deportation of non EEA nationals.

 

During the referendum the Leave campaign could only come up with 50 cases where the ruling prevented the UK from deporting EEA nationals: Vote Leave lists 50 criminals it says EU has stopped UK deporting. Of course, the same ruling applies to British criminals in other EEA states.

 

Membership of the EU in many cases actually makes deporting EU national criminals easier. From the above article

Quote

However, the remain campaign rejected this argument, highlighting the 6,500 European criminals who had been deported since 2010 because of the European arrest warrant system that comes from being in the EU.

“That’s 130 times the number of criminals Vote Leave have identified,” said James Brokenshire, an immigration minister.

 

55 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The UK could then, if it wished, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and avoid the rulings of its court, the ECtHR.

It is true that one of the conditions of EU membership is abiding by the ECHR, so the UK could not withdraw from that until after Brexit. But be careful what you wish for; the UK was a founder member of the ECHR, and it is based to a large extent on the rights and freedoms we have enjoyed in the UK for generations. Do you really want to lose those rights and freedoms merely because at times foreign criminals, such as Abu Hamza, use the convention in attempts to prevent them being deported to answer for their crimes?

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

That would be a start, and if the British civil service has the ability to reimpose rigorous border controls for the UK, which is unclear, then it would have achieved some solid results in trying to claim back its sovereignty.

 

Which is, in fact, what Brexit Leave voters were voting for.

The UK government, in the form of UKVI and UK Border Force, does have complete control over it's borders as far as most of the world is concerned; and that control is enforced; just take a look at posts in the Visas and immigration to other countries forum!

 

As the UK is a member of the EU then British citizens have freedom of movement rights in other EEA member states and EEA nationals have the same rights in the UK.

[i claudius]

The lefty hug em lovies just squirm and squirm

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 As shown by his reaction to my previous post, and his dismissal of yours with

 

 Morch is not interested in facts and figures.

 

Morch, you are correct that not all Muslim leaders, religious and political, have condemned Islamic terrorism; which is why I didn't say that they did, despite your attempt's to infer otherwise. I said "the vast majority of Muslim political and religious leaders" rather than "all."

 

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between a majority and all?

 

But there is plenty of such condemnation out there for those that care to look; myself and others have posted links to it many, many times. Not anecdotal evidence, but outright statements of condemnation.

 

Yet more examples:

 

The Big Lie About Muslim Silence on Terrorism: plenty of links in there.

 

Global Condemnations of ISIS/ISIL; even more links.

 

Following a specific event: London attack: 500 imams condemn terrorists and refuse to perform funeral prayer for 'vile murderers'

Which shows that not only do ordinary Muslims condemn terrorism, they also report suspicious activities and persons to the police.

 

Maybe, Morch, you do not equate Islam itself with terrorism, nor label all Muslims as terrorists or terrorists supporters; but as shown by many posts in this and other topics, a significant group of TV members do.

 

 

Once more. You cannot make claims as to "vast majority" without addressing what is the total pool of subjects involved. What you can do is misleadingly cite anecdotal references and catchy headlines, claiming that they represent such a "vast majority". They do not, and this is not a very strong argument, to put it mildly.

 

I never said that there are no condemnations of Islamic terrorism by Muslims, just that you routinely exaggerate and inflate the available data - as exemplified in the post above (and the same goes for the one you quoted). Note that my "dismissal" is not wholesale, but qualified. I simply don't see a "vast majority" in any of the above - idiosyncratic and partisan takes on what "vast majority" stands for notwithstanding.

 

I also agree that there are many a bigoted anti-Muslim posters on this forum. If that's your justification for the posts above, then again - not a very strong argument, to put it mildly.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Once more. You cannot make claims as to "vast majority" without addressing what is the total pool of subjects involved. What you can do is misleadingly cite anecdotal references and catchy headlines, claiming that they represent such a "vast majority". They do not, and this is not a very strong argument, to put it mildly.

 

I never said that there are no condemnations of Islamic terrorism by Muslims, just that you routinely exaggerate and inflate the available data - as exemplified in the post above (and the same goes for the one you quoted). Note that my "dismissal" is not wholesale, but qualified. I simply don't see a "vast majority" in any of the above - idiosyncratic and partisan takes on what "vast majority" stands for notwithstanding.

 

I also agree that there are many a bigoted anti-Muslim posters on this forum. If that's your justification for the posts above, then again - not a very strong argument, to put it mildly.

All the available evidence we have points to the fact that a vast majority don't support terrorism. The Pew survey covered nations holding more than 1/3 of the world's muslims.

[Credo]

It would appear that the biggest problem is going to be those inside the country.   The ISIS fighters overseas are basically being abandoned and prevailing message is that they should die rather be allowed back:

 

Foreigners who joined IS faced almost certain death in Raqqa

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/foreigners-joined-faced-almost-certain-122519885.html

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[i claudius]

To all who say we can trust the Muslims i say this, i remember my history lessons in school and seeing a picture of a British prime minister on the steps of a plane waving a sheet of paper aftdr visiting Hitler he was saying "peace in our time" look how that turned out. As i have said many times after working with and dealing with and living amongst them for 30 odd years .I dont trust them

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

All the available evidence we have points to the fact that a vast majority don't support terrorism. The Pew survey covered nations holding more than 1/3 of the world's muslims.

 

I'm pretty sure you are aware the above is incorrect.

 

One of the standing arguments often presented on these discussions posits that not all Muslims are the same. This may refer to a whole lot of things, some obvious ones being subjects' concept of religion, level of religiosity, political orientation, social-economic status, current political climate, cultural differences and location.

 

The data (and not, "evidence") available does not support strong extrapolations and inferences such as you suggest. It simply cannot bridge the variance or account for its various factors. That's without even getting into obvious (and less obvious) problems with conducting such polls and surveys (especially when touching on political and religious issues). The Pew survey covered those countries in which it was possible to conduct such a survey. If anything, what this reflects is that for either logistical or political reasons, the rest of the population in question was not available. It is quite a leap to assert that results indicate a similar trend, given the variance between groups making up the total population.

 

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, i claudius said:

To all who say we can trust the Muslims i say this, i remember my history lessons in school and seeing a picture of a British prime minister on the steps of a plane waving a sheet of paper aftdr visiting Hitler he was saying "peace in our time" look how that turned out. As i have said many times after working with and dealing with and living amongst them for 30 odd years .I dont trust them

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

I first started traveling to India in 1974, for yoga and meditation.  I didn't even know what a muslin was at 22 y.o.  what I did see was everywhere I went they were always the ones starting trouble and putting us, travel companions in danger.  It's only gotten worse.  We're on the same page with this one.

 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, i claudius said:

The lefty hug em lovies just squirm and squirm

 If by 'squirm and squirm' you mean 'answer questions put to them and provide evidence to back those answers up' then you are correct.

 

Meanwhile, you have yet to provide any evidence at all to support your assertion that millions of Muslims  cheered 9/11; could it be because the evidence doesn't exists because your statement is simply untrue?

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

<snip>

Once more. You cannot make claims as to "vast majority" without addressing what is the total pool of subjects involved. What you can do is misleadingly cite anecdotal references and catchy headlines, claiming that they represent such a "vast majority". They do not, and this is not a very strong argument, to put it mildly.

 

Anecdotal evidence is testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

 

What I, and others, have provided is not anecdotal, it is definite statements from Muslim political and religious leaders, from Muslim spokespeople and representative groups, from individual Muslims via sites like http://isisnotinmyname.com/, and news reports of demonstrations by Muslims; all condemning Islamic terrorism.

 

There are far more of these than there are of Muslims supporting Islamic terrorism.

 

However, I accept that a hill farmer in Afghanistan, or a rubber planter in Indonesia or similar have not publicly expressed an opinion either way, so will modify my statement to "The vast majority of Muslims who have publicly expressed an opinion condemn Islamic terrorism."

[7by7]

6 hours ago, i claudius said:

As i have said many times after working with and dealing with and living amongst them for 30 odd years .I dont trust them

 

 

4 hours ago, joeyg said:

I first started traveling to India in 1974, for yoga and meditation.  I didn't even know what a muslin was at 22 y.o.  what I did see was everywhere I went they were always the ones starting trouble and putting us, travel companions in danger.  It's only gotten worse.  We're on the same page with this one.

 

 No doubt Morch will be along to dismiss the above as anecdotal evidence.

[RickBradford]

The cosseting of Muslim terrorists, and glorification of the wonders of Islam by the mainstream media, reaches ever-sillier heights.

 

It used to be that people who claimed to see the face of Jesus in a badly-cooked omelette, or in an oil-stain on the garage floor, were regarded as oddball zealots.

 

Now, someone has claimed that 9th-century Scandinavian Vikings were influenced by Islam, based on some sewing patterns found on their burial shrouds.

 

Who brings us this news? Why, it is ISIS's best friend, the ever-reliable BBC, which gives freelance journalist Tharik Hussain the platform to spread Islamic magic over its pages. Of course, they forget to tell us that this fable is ridiculed by serious scholars. Nothing must disturb the narrative!

 

No wonder the UK is facing its most serious-ever terrorist threat. With friends like the BBC, who needs enemies?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391

 

Your taxpayer  dollars at work.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Anecdotal evidence is testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

 

What I, and others, have provided is not anecdotal, it is definite statements from Muslim political and religious leaders, from Muslim spokespeople and representative groups, from individual Muslims via sites like http://isisnotinmyname.com/, and news reports of demonstrations by Muslims; all condemning Islamic terrorism.

 

There are far more of these than there are of Muslims supporting Islamic terrorism.

 

However, I accept that a hill farmer in Afghanistan, or a rubber planter in Indonesia or similar have not publicly expressed an opinion either way, so will modify my statement to "The vast majority of Muslims who have publicly expressed an opinion condemn Islamic terrorism."

 

Hard to tell if you actually fail to grasp what's posted or just pretending to.

 

The leap you suggest, as in between anecdotal reference and strong claim such as "vast majority" doesn't hold water. It doesn't take into account the total population in question, it tends to be overly focused on easily accessible reports (as those appearing in English), it does it's best to belittle or deny anything that runs contrary to the wished for answers.

 

You can (and I'm sure you will) go on posting such nonsense, but there is no empiric data unequivocally supporting your strong claim. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 No doubt Morch will be along to dismiss the above as anecdotal evidence.

 

No doubt you are exhibiting a total lack of comprehension as to what was posted.

 

The first post conveyed the poster's personal experience and personal take. Whether I agree with it or not, it is not equivalent to claims raised by yourself.

 

The second post, is obviously incorrect (at least in part), and can be challenged along similar lines raised in the context of your posts. It's worth noting, though, that neither makes quite as focused an assertions as you do.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

The cosseting of Muslim terrorists, and glorification of the wonders of Islam by the mainstream media, reaches ever-sillier heights.

 

It used to be that people who claimed to see the face of Jesus in a badly-cooked omelette, or in an oil-stain on the garage floor, were regarded as oddball zealots.

 

Now, someone has claimed that 9th-century Scandinavian Vikings were influenced by Islam, based on some sewing patterns found on their burial shrouds.

 

Who brings us this news? Why, it is ISIS's best friend, the ever-reliable BBC, which gives freelance journalist Tharik Hussain the platform to spread Islamic magic over its pages. Of course, they forget to tell us that this fable is ridiculed by serious scholars. Nothing must disturb the narrative!

 

No wonder the UK is facing its most serious-ever terrorist threat. With friends like the BBC, who needs enemies?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391

 

Your taxpayer  dollars at work.

 

 

"Sewing patterns?" It was Kufic script sewn into silk cloth. And who controlled the silk trade to Europe? It was the Muslims.  Who, by the way, at that time had far more advanced civilization than anything to be found in Christian governed Europe or anywhere on planet Earth with the possible exception of China.

Edited October 22, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm pretty sure you are aware the above is incorrect.

 

One of the standing arguments often presented on these discussions posits that not all Muslims are the same. This may refer to a whole lot of things, some obvious ones being subjects' concept of religion, level of religiosity, political orientation, social-economic status, current political climate, cultural differences and location.

 

The data (and not, "evidence") available does not support strong extrapolations and inferences such as you suggest. It simply cannot bridge the variance or account for its various factors. That's without even getting into obvious (and less obvious) problems with conducting such polls and surveys (especially when touching on political and religious issues). The Pew survey covered those countries in which it was possible to conduct such a survey. If anything, what this reflects is that for either logistical or political reasons, the rest of the population in question was not available. It is quite a leap to assert that results indicate a similar trend, given the variance between groups making up the total population.

 

It would be quite a leap if the numbers weren't so strongly in favor of the proposition that support of terrorism is a minority belief in the Islamic world. And India, the world's second largest Muslim population wasn't included in the poll. Given the Pakistani numbers, and the low incidence of native terrorism in India, it's extremely unlikely there is widespread support of terrorism there. And there's this, too.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-3

So we're approaching the halfway mark in muslim opinion.

Now throw in Bangladesh and the evidence from this poll where 69 percent of Bengali Muslims believe that the rise in Islamic terrorism is a serious problem (as well as other countries not listed in the first poll)

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

and you've got over half the world's muslims in these nations being overwhelmingly against terrorism.

 

You would have to posit a negative mirror image of the remainder of the Islamic believers to even have a 50 percent breakdown. That would be quite a leap.

And as for the reliability of the polls, I'll trust the social scientists at Pew over you on this matter.

[Opl]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Anecdotal evidence is testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

 

What I, and others, have provided is not anecdotal, it is definite statements from Muslim political and religious leaders, from Muslim spokespeople and representative groups, from individual Muslims via sites like http://isisnotinmyname.com/, and news reports of demonstrations by Muslims; all condemning Islamic terrorism.

 

There are far more of these than there are of Muslims supporting Islamic terrorism.

 

However, I accept that a hill farmer in Afghanistan, or a rubber planter in Indonesia or similar have not publicly expressed an opinion either way, so will modify my statement to "The vast majority of Muslims who have publicly expressed an opinion condemn Islamic terrorism."

 

Muslims living in western non muslim countries - because they choose to migrate for economic reasons ( not because they dreamed of western way of life and culture) - maybe, as you say and repeat "condemn Islamic terrorism"  - BUT - they rather should condemn clearly the ideology behind - and  denounce and boycott the places where this ideology is taught and spread, and avoid keeping a blind eye when family members, relatives, friends are involved in suspicious or delictual activities .

But they are more active at speaking up against islamophobia. It's easier. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Opl

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It would be quite a leap if the numbers weren't so strongly in favor of the proposition that support of terrorism is a minority belief in the Islamic world. And India, the world's second largest Muslim population wasn't included in the poll. Given the Pakistani numbers, and the low incidence of native terrorism in India, it's extremely unlikely there is widespread support of terrorism there. And there's this, too.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-3

So we're approaching the halfway mark in muslim opinion.

Now throw in Bangladesh and the evidence from this poll where 69 percent of Bengali Muslims believe that the rise in Islamic terrorism is a serious problem (as well as other countries not listed in the first poll)

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

and you've got over half the world's muslims in these nations being overwhelmingly against terrorism.

 

You would have to posit a negative mirror image of the remainder of the Islamic believers to even have a 50 percent breakdown. That would be quite a leap.

And as for the reliability of the polls, I'll trust the social scientists at Pew over you on this matter.

 

The original claim was about a "vast majority". Even if your misguided account was to be accepted it wouldn't amount to a "vast majority" - unless, perhaps, if you two define "vast majority" as "any majority". There is no requirement to posit "a negative mirror image" in order to fault your argument - that's just bogus demagoguery. I did not make any such strong counter claim, but merely reject the one offered. Not quite the same thing, but you already knew that.

 

I am not aware that any of the serious survey and attached analysis make the sort of leaps you and the other poster claim. Most take care to qualify findings, point out caveats and possible problematic issues, rather than engage in the sort of overreaching statements offered on these topic and others.

 

As for your lame ad hominem/appeal to authority argument - them "social scientists" do not actually make the strong claim you offer, and are themselves in the habit of acknowledging issues with polling. Doubt many would condone your simplistic lumping of different poll results, cherry picking, ignoring core issues with sampling, or treating poll results as a clear representation of positions. Having had quite a few years of hands on experience with the subject matter, I feel rather confident even lacking the benefit of your trust.

[Rimmer]

An off topic post and link have been removed topic is about  UK facing most severe terror threat ever, warns MI5 chief

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The original claim was about a "vast majority". Even if your misguided account was to be accepted it wouldn't amount to a "vast majority" - unless, perhaps, if you two define "vast majority" as "any majority". There is no requirement to posit "a negative mirror image" in order to fault your argument - that's just bogus demagoguery. I did not make any such strong counter claim, but merely reject the one offered. Not quite the same thing, but you already knew that.

 

I am not aware that any of the serious survey and attached analysis make the sort of leaps you and the other poster claim. Most take care to qualify findings, point out caveats and possible problematic issues, rather than engage in the sort of overreaching statements offered on these topic and others.

 

As for your lame ad hominem/appeal to authority argument - them "social scientists" do not actually make the strong claim you offer, and are themselves in the habit of acknowledging issues with polling. Doubt many would condone your simplistic lumping of different poll results, cherry picking, ignoring core issues with sampling, or treating poll results as a clear representation of positions. Having had quite a few years of hands on experience with the subject matter, I feel rather confident even lacking the benefit of your trust.

Thanks for your reference to your "quite a few years of hands on experience with the subject matter.". It's always useful and enlightening when an anonymous poster makes such non-confirmable claims. Clearly, I have no reason to doubt your general and non specific language.

I'm afraid I don't understand how "a negative mirror image would be demagoguery. It's simply a reference to a negative quantity canceling out a positive one.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for your reference to your "quite a few years of hands on experience with the subject matter.". It's always useful and enlightening when an anonymous poster makes such non-confirmable claims. Clearly, I have no reason to doubt your general and non specific language.

I'm afraid I don't understand how "a negative mirror image would be demagoguery. It's simply a reference to a negative quantity canceling out a positive one.

 

More desperate ad hominem nonsense unnecessarily focusing on a minor point. As said, I have no need for self confirmation from a fellow "anonymous poster", especially one obviously not well versed in what he's posting about.

 

There was a strong claim made with regard to the existence of a "vast majority". Faulting this argument does not necessitate demonstrating the existence of the exact opposite. All that's required is a demonstration that the claim is not grounded in fact. If I was to claim that a "vast majority" of Muslims support Islamic, you'd have a point - as it is, you do not.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More desperate ad hominem nonsense unnecessarily focusing on a minor point. As said, I have no need for self confirmation from a fellow "anonymous poster", especially one obviously not well versed in what he's posting about.

 

There was a strong claim made with regard to the existence of a "vast majority". Faulting this argument does not necessitate demonstrating the existence of the exact opposite. All that's required is a demonstration that the claim is not grounded in fact. If I was to claim that a "vast majority" of Muslims support Islamic, you'd have a point - as it is, you do not.

The statistical evidence that there is strongly supports the likelihood that there is an ovewhelming majority. And as for the ad hominem arguemt, you put the "hominem" into play.  I cite third party sources whereas you cite yourself. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The statistical evidence that there is strongly supports the likelihood that there is an ovewhelming majority. And as for the ad hominem arguemt, you put the "hominem" into play.  I cite third party sources whereas you cite yourself. 

 

No, it isn't. In fact, there is no such "statistical evidence" toward the strong claim that was suggested. It simply doesn't work this way. I did not "cite" myself, but rather it was you who chose to to focus on that specific bit. And anyone who knows even a bit about the topic at hand wouldn't need to quote anyone, the flaws in the claim are evident even without much of a relevant background. Further, you did not quote any third party sources supporting the strong "vast majority" argument, nor anything supporting your warped take of how polls works or to what extent results could be applied. The analysis is mostly limited to the countries and populations surveyed.