On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:55:31PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Sure, there have been, in history, suicidal attacks that are not > terrorist attacks. The kamakazi attacks in WWII would be an example > of this. But, I was talking about actual attacks by Palestinians on > Israel, in particular the recent ones. Would you care to name one > suicide attack from this infatal that was consistant with the Geneva > convention?
That's not the right question, nor the right person to question. In the poll, did the people being questioned understand whether they were being asked about the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, or could the question have been construed as whether they support suicide attacks in general (for example, attacking Israeli military bases or "settlers" who are illegally occupying land)? > Well, it was given as a general indication of opinion. Lack of stated > methodology is a minus, but the fact that the poll was sponsered by > someone who has a track history (AP) is a plus. It is probable that > they know something about methodology and would not lend their name to > a poll that didn't follow any decent methodology. What is the probability that they know all the tricks necessary to get an accurate poll of Palestinians? Pollsters trained in the US or UK probably do a good job (I'll accept your +/- 10%) in their locations of expertise. But are the pollsters out of their element in Palestine? I have no way to know without more information, which was not provided. > Errors can be introduced by small changes in wording. One always > wants identical wording. But, the changes that result from small > changes in wording usually are in the range of 10% or so. I'll wager that your +/- 10% intuitive number was largely developed from US polls. Extrapolating to a quite different situation is always an uncertain thing. > Yes, of course I do. An example was when it was 10 PM, the tools are > going out at 7AM, and it will take 6 hours of work to prepare the > tools. No matter what you do, you can't push the deadline back. So, > you give it your best shot. You take field reports, inconsistant lab > results, and make the very best decision you can. To me, this is an absurd analogy. It sounds to me like you place a low importance upon this "decision", by equating it with delivering a few tools. I prefer to withold judgement on the ethics of several million people until I have strongly convincing evidence. I require much greater levels of proof for this important a decision than I do for deciding day-to-day engineering matters. I imagine you also require different levels of proof depending on the importance of the matter. I think it is cavalier to toss around such vaguely supported data about such an important matter. > You know I tend to provide as much data as I can to back up my claims. > Indeed, I would wager that if we went back and looked at arguements > made over the last few years, I would supply more data than the > average poster. I don't think you tend to provide more data than I > do, but I'd be willing to be proven wrong. How did this get to be a competition? Anyway, you win. You are the data king! > BTW, I found a detailed poll that was done last June at: > > http://www.jmcc.org/polls/2001/no41.htm > > It gave the following answers to a question about the suicide > bombongs: > > What about the suicide bombing operations? Do you see them as a > suitable response in the current political conditions or do you oppose > them and see them harmful to national interests? > > I see them as a suitable response in the current political conditions > 68.6 I oppose it and see it as harmful to Palestinian national > interests 23.1 I don't know 6.2 No answer 2.1 Much better, truly worth of the Data King. If you had posted this link in the first place, I don't think I would have argued with you at all. The methodology is explained in detail, and is quite convincing. It answers almost all of the questions I asked above about the previous poll you referenced. The only change I would like to see would be a more direct question about whether they support killing unarmed "non-settler" civilians, and maybe a couple questions investigating whether people were thinking through the consequences of their responses, or were just "wishing". (You will probably get very different answers to "would you like to have a million dollars?" and "What would you be willing to do or have done to you in order to get a million dollars?") But this is a minor complaint. I think the question below is a better indication of the sentiment of average Palestinians on terrorism. Which Political or religious faction do you trust most? Total West Bank Gaza Strip n= 1201 n=761 n=440 Fateh 34.9 32.9 38.4 Hamas 18.6 15.1 24.5 Islamic Jihad 5.2 5.1 5.5 PFLP 2.7 2.2 3.6 Other Islamic faction 2.5 2.1 3.2 Other factions 2.3 3.2 0.9 Don't trust anyone 24.6 27.3 19.8 No answer 9.2 12.1 4.1 About 24% trust Hamas or Islamic Jihad the most. Scary, but not a majority. If they could vote on their leaders, at least they wouldn't elect one of those groups as the controlling party (assuming the don't trust anyone's and no answers would neglect to vote). > Let me ask you, have you got contrary evidence? No. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
