sites that exist exclusively to feed confirmation bias are not the most sporting resources to bring in. that site also references the same sets of data many times to make it seem like there are more statistics than there really are and seems to be doing some wordplay, like changing "finds x justifiable" to "supports x," etc., which is slightly concerning
and one set of data that was referenced a few times (an "ICM opinion poll") only has a sample size of 500, which is laughably tiny, and they misrepresent the data there anyways and skip over the part where 99% of the sample thought the 7/7 attacks were wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html . they emphasize the figure talking about the 20% of the tiny sample felt sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the attackers, but they intend to represent that as 20% when it isn't, but rather understanding of
why the attackers would have been motivated in the first place, and even then, 75% still said they did not sympathize, so i have no idea why this is particular data set is supposed to be compelling in the slightest
they also reference a lot of things that basically seem to indicate that people in the middle east and the surrounding regions don't like america and some non-insignificant portion of people support attacking america, which also isn't too surprising given recent political history
