4% + 9% = 13%:
The think-tank found that 4% expressed a positive opinion of the Islamic State (ISIS) and another 9% expressed a "somewhat positive" opinion of the terrorist group.
Maybe you could start by opening your home to a Syrian refugee. People fleeing the "death cult" are precisely the sort of people who could do with your help.
That's very idealistic and glib, except that one survey has shown that 13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS. Would you take a 1 in 8 chance that your houseguest wants to kill you? And even the ones who aren't terror-supporters now are still Muslims (mostly), which means they carry the same memetic infection that produced ISIS (and all the other Islamic radical groups). There's a good chance that some of their kids and grandkids will be radicals, as France has learned: many of their "home-grown" radical Islamists are from Algerian families that came to France generations ago.
In short, just because they are refugees doesn't necessarily make them good people.
Sorry, but you and much of the West are being played for suckers. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have plenty of money and room for their co-religionists. They're all part of the ummah, right? But they don't want a bunch of poor and semi-skilled people with a heavy sprinkling of terror-supporters. Why burden their welfare rolls and strain their societies? Better to fob off the refugees on Europe (and the US), where they can spread Islam and soak up Western welfare money. It is a core Muslim belief that the entire Earth will one day be Muslim. The Muslim world is taking advantage of the Syrian war to spread Islam. We are fools to go along with it.
So my problem was paying attention to actual newspaper articles, rather than highly biased sources?
Your problem was to assume that newspapers are not "highly biased sources."
"Little does the public reck how much of the news it devours every day is manufactured by entrepreneurs. Not infrequently, I have detected as much as a whole page of it in the eminent Sunpaper, a journal more suspicious than most: it is far worse in others. One reads that the representative of a national organization is before Congress demanding this or that radical change in the laws, the plain fact is that the national organization consists of its representative -- that the rest of the members are simply dolts who have put up the money for his salary and expenses in order to bathe themselves in the glare of his publicity. One hears that a million children in Abyssinia are starving, that a fund of $5,000,000 is being raised to succor them, that Baltimore's quota is $216.000, the plain fact is that an accomplished drive manager has got a new job. One hears that "the women of the United States" are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust." —from “The Uplift as a Trade" by H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, March 2, 1915
“The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.” H.L. Mencken
Nevertheless, you have not shown any of these facts to be incorrect.
As for "it wouldn't have happened to a white person," nonsense. It happens to white people all the time. The kid who got in trouble for biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun was white. The college student who got in trouble for having a butter knife in her car (a "weapon on campus") was white. Plus, you are ignoring the fact that this was a stunt. The point was to get arrested and make a stink. That's why the kid did what he did, including plugging it in in class and setting the alarm, even after one teacher had told him to not show it to anyone. And then he was uncooperative with the police. And the famous picture of him with handcuffs was staged: the father insisted the handcuffs by put back on, so that a picture could be taken. Don't take a political stunt at face value.
Because when I look for facts I choose okayafrica, wordpress and breitbart above all.
Well, facts exist in many places. Read the links and judge for yourself. If you find them inaccurate, let us know. But to simply dismiss arguments simply because of who makes them is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
I think it's especially true that valid information on controversial subjects often comes from non-mainstream sources. In this case, most of the media went with the consensus story, something like "Innocent boy is victim of Islamophobia." Only by digging deeper did some people discover the backstory of the family. Surely it is relevant that the father is a political activist, and that having his son be a victim of "Islamophobia" might help in his next campaign for president of Sudan? Surely it's interesting that the sister was expelled from the school district for a bomb threat, and might have a grudge?
I read widely on this and realized that it was likely similar to the "Flying Imams" incident: Some Muslims do things which are technically innocent but calculated to look like a security threat, and then cry "Islamophobia!" when they authorities notice. The whole thing was a stunt.
Here you go:
What I find very curious are the web sites whose home pages are fully and completely written in Flash. If you do not enable flash, you see nothing but a blank page.
The owners of those websites were probably sold a bill of goods for a "cool website" by the same designers who proffered flaming logos 20 years ago....
Or, the web developer thought it was not a good idea, but the client insisted on Flash. She wouldn't listen to me, and now her site is invisible on mobile....
The headline is a little clickbait-y, but the article is neutral. how do you associate one headline with the "SJW-side"?
I find your sneer about a "parliament" rather odd. It's not a "bogeyman" to note that people who generally take one side of an ideological issue will... generally take one side of an ideological issue. Yes, there are disagreements within teams, but it's not unfair to make general statements about ideological teams when those teams usually act like teams.
How many do I need to post to prove my point? Here's Arthur Chu, the self-described "social justice stormtrooper," again expressing the "SJW side": Reddit’s Terrorists Have Won: Ellen Pao and the Failure to Rebrand Web 2.0. A big feminist blog: Pao! Right in the Kisser: Reddit assholes celebrate CEO’s resignation after a week of abuse. SJWs Brianna Wu and Randi Harper are lining up just as one would expect. The NY Times puts their editorial view directly into the news. I'm sure there will be more in the coming days.
Thanks to Ellen Pao, Asian-Americans will no longer be saddled with the insidious stereotype of being bright, hardworking and competent.
Anybody know of $500k+ tech industry job openings for a lawsuit-happy SJW with no technical experience? Asking for a friend.
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga