The whole point is that when fanatical Christians blew up abortion clinics they were roundly denounced by other Christians, caught by the police, and put in jail.

The whole point is that when fanatical Muslims blew up the Sari Club in Bali they were roundly denounced by other Muslims, caught by the police, put in jail and then executed.

As you can see, Muslims treat terrorism very seriously in some countries.

The fanatics are in control. They kill moderates who call for peace with non-Muslims. If they stay on the path of jihad against the rest of the world, a whole lot of people are going to die. It will not be avoidable.

The survey figures don't suggest this. If anything they suggest the moderates are taking control. Where are you getting your evidence?

By the way, you'll need to look at the questionnaire itself to see the poll questions. The charts in general are unrepresentative. link: http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/253topline.pdf

Speaking of which I wish I could have seen (and understood) the multilingual versions. I know personally the difficulty of translating complex survey questions into foreign languages, particularly non-Romantic languages. It'd be interesting how they dealt with the issues there - ie how do you transpose a concept like suicide bomber? It doesn't exist in every language, so it might have to be explained. For example Indonesian has an equivalent - pembom - but it can also mean a regular everyday bomber.

Read the full report for the horrifying full stats.

Oh i did, at least the parts that pertain to this thread anyway and what is horrifying is the way you massacred the stats and poll to fit your own racist agenda.

I dont see anywhere a definition of what "in defence of Islam" actually means to "them" or "us". What's considered a threat to Islam?

Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely.

Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq?

I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral?

You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it?

And you've also twisted in "defence of Islam" into "In the name of Islam". i.e From defender to aggressor. Nice.

And just to be clear what you phrase as "In many Islam countries" is drawn from a poll of 10 muslim communities around the world of which only 3 responded with the views you attempt to outline right?

By significant, I mean near majorities or outright majorities

Whats significant is the overall trend away from any kind of feelings in the direction of violence against civilian targets and the fact that you have chosen to completely ignore it in your interpretation.

I dunno why you just dont write an article entitled "I hate Muslims, I really fucking hate them" and be done with it. Because its clear that you do.

Granted, as a whole it's not like that, however there have been christian bombers and such, i.e. abortion clinic bombers. So, you can't really say that it has grown out of christianity when it still exists. It may have grown up, and shrugged most of it off, but...it still exists.

To equate Christianity with the results displayed in this article simply because there have been Christian bombers (what? a couple of people to abortion clinics in the 1990s?) is disgusting.

We're talking not about a couple of whackos here. We're talking about MILLIONS of people who think it is acceptable to murder innocent people to "defend" Islam.

Oh i did, at least the parts that pertain to this thread anyway and what is horrifying is the way you massacred the stats and poll to fit your own racist agenda. I dont see anywhere a definition of what "in defence of Islam" actually means to "them" or "us". What's considered a threat to Islam? Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely. Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq? I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral? You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it? And you've also twisted in "defence of Islam" into "In the name of Islam". i.e From defender to aggressor. Nice. And just to be clear what you phrase as "In many Islam countries" is drawn from a poll of 10 muslim communities around the world of which only 3 responded with the views you attempt to outline right?

Why is it that dumb people have to use the word racist to describe things that obviously have nothing to do with race?

Islam is a religion/ideology. It is not a race. Anyone can be a Muslim. Even you. 

Saying that someone is racist for opposing Islamism is like saying someone is racism for opposing Communism or Nazism. 

Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely. Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq?

OR you could actually have a poll like what was just presented:

"Do you believe it okay to target civilians in order to defend US interests can be justified" I suspect you would find that the results would be incredibly low. I.e. low single digits. 

Is there ANYONE here, a single person who thinks it is "sometimes" justifiable to target civilians to defend US interests.  The key word here is interests not the US since the question isn't about defending your house, home or nation but rather an ideology/interest/religion.  

So yes, please, anyone reading this, if YOU think it is okay to target civilians for US interests speak up.  I know I certainly don't support targeting civilians for US interests.

30,000 Iraqi civilians have died. How many by US forces? How many intentionally by US forces?  The poll isn't very complicated, it asks if it's okay to TARGET civilians. Not if it is acceptable if civilians happen to die in the process of defending something. TARGET is the operative word.

I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral? You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it?

Please let me know what the distinction is between targeting civilians and murdering innocents? First, I don't see any distinction. Secondly, the gist of the article was pretty clear -- when is it okay to blow up busses and restraunts in order to murder civilians in the name of Islam?

Given that I posted the actual poll, I wasn't hiding anything. I think most people can make the conclusion that you either are against it or you are in favor of it. To me, the degrees are kind of irrelevant.  I'm willing to come right out and say that I don't support targeting civilians for ANY ideology or concept under any circumstances.  I think it's a yes or no type thing and expressed it as such.

I dunno why you just dont write an article entitled "I hate Muslims, I really fucking hate them" and be done with it. Because its clear that you do.

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything.  I loathe Islam as an ideology and will continue to do what I can in my own small way to make sure are aware that it is Islamism that we are fighting against and to make sure PC propaganda hasn't made people dismiss the threat that Islamism poses to our way of life.

Acording to the poll you posted, the number who suport violence against civilian tagets have gone down in Pakistan, Jordan and Indonesia, while they have gone up a little in Turkey. Those numbers do not sound like horrible numbers. Unless I am reading the charts horribly wrong, I do not see the majorities your talking about. Except in Jordan, Egypt, and Nigeria, the majority believe violence against civilians can NEVER be justified. That is the exact opposite of what you are talking about. I do not see a majority.

Islamism that we are fighting against

Eh, NO.

It is terrorism we are fighting. Not Islam. It is the blood shed that is being spilled by so called muslims (who have been denoucned by other muslims btw).

It was terrorists, backed by a perverted form of islam, that attacked the twin towers, who run AQ, etc...


~L

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything. I loathe Islam as an ideology

Ummm, that makes no sense.

So, you don't "hate" those who practice, but you loathe what they practice...but...how can you not loathe those who practice it, while you loathe the ideoloy?

How about the muslim terrorists? Do you loathe them?

Why is it that dumb people have to use the word racist to describe things that obviously have nothing to do with race?

I think you'll find its just as often used to describe discrimination based on religion. In fact if i define:racist in Google I'll get :

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Saying that someone is racist for opposing Islamism is like saying someone is racism for opposing Communism or Nazism

No its not the same at all because communism or nazism dont fall under "any" defintion of racism. They are neither races nor religions, they are political idealogies.

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything. I loathe Islam as an ideology and will continue to do what I can in my own small way to make sure are aware that it is Islamism that we are fighting against and to make sure PC propaganda hasn't made people dismiss the threat that Islamism poses to our way of life.

Oh cmon. Racism is a discrimination based on race or religion. You loathe Islam, you believe you're in a fight against it, you believe it poses a threat to your way of life and yet you're actually going to try and suggest that you dont discriminate against it? Gimme a break. Like i said just call a spade a spade.

Ummm, that makes no sense. So, you don't "hate" those who practice, but you loathe what they practice...but...how can you not loathe those who practice it, while you loathe the ideoloy?

You don't understand how one can seperate a concept from a person? I really can't help you with that.

Oh cmon. Racism is a discrimination based on race or religion.

Scoff: You are too dumb to participate on my personal blog postings.  I don't know what's worse, that you would attempt to stifle discussion by calling people racists or that you don't understand what racism is. Sorry, time for you to go away.

 

 

Not so fast, Brad. If you really can use "Google define:racist" to support your argument, it must not be that stupid. It sounded stupid to me, but I went to the source he cited and looked for their bias, and they do give a good example of a bias many would call racist that's actually about religion: anti-Semitism.

Is there ANYONE here, a single person who thinks it is "sometimes" justifiable to target civilians to defend US interests. The key word here is interests not the US since the question isn't about defending your house, home or nation but rather an ideology/interest/religion.

I'm not sure if any of them are here today, but many Americans supported targeting civilians with Mutually Assured Destruction or civilian bombings in World War II. In fact I would have to think carefully about whether I could say that it was "never" justified. I wonder if that means I'm more dedicated to my country than my religion, because I would easily say it was never justified to protect Christianity. I guess it's just easier to think of examples for a country where targeting civilians would help.

It's really about how effective it would be, isn't it? It wouldn't have been justified for Jews to murder random Germans during the Holocaust, unless they knew that they could prevent the Holocaust by doing so, then it's kind of an ends versus means argument. Like war in general. Maybe not justified, but necessary. Yuck, I'm glad I'm not in a situation where I have to make this kind of choice, where the ethical path leads to all your friends getting killed. I think I'd have to answer "Don't know" if they surveyed me today.

Second thought, I think "prejudiced" or "bigoted" would be a better word for anti-Semitism than "racist." It doesn't really fit. But some people did used to think Jews were a race, right? From Ham, Shem, and Japheth.

Not so fast, Brad. If you really can use "Google define:racist" to support your argument, it must not be that stupid. It sounded stupid to me, but I went to the source he cited and looked for their bias, and they do give a good example of a bias many would call racist that's actually about religion: anti-Semitism.

The fact that across the Internet it is possible to find some fool that thinks RACEism is not tied wholy to the concept of thinking that one race is superior to another race is irrelevant to me.

The main reason it's irrelevant is that the guy is merely trying to discourage discussion on this topic by throwing a loaded charge.  Oh, we can't criticize Islam because if we do, we're a bunch of filthy racists so we should just be quiet. Right?

His loaded charge had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion other than to try to derail it and make it stop entirely.  I'm not going to have the topic hijacked into a semantics discussion about what racism means.

There is nothing racist about not liking Islam. It's practiced by all races on this planet. If someone disagrees they are free to think racism means whatever they want -- but not on my blog.

Some people just define racism different.

"I'm not going to have the topic hijacked into a semantics discussion about what racism means."

Agreed lets keep the focus on Islam and Islamic opinion worldwide on westerers.

One more comment I'll make is that, the title of the survey as posted isn't entirely accurate, meaning the part where it says...

"Violence against civillian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified...*" As written, this is not how the survey was shown, the question according to the document provided on the site is...

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are
justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the
reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is
often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

So the question wasn't asked specifying any particular enemy though the rest of the survey makes mention of Western and Western relationship, not cowboy Westerns, but the so called "Western World"

I'm not going to wiggle and say the respondents were thinking about everybody but the United States, but clearly the question wasn't asked direcly about the United States.

Now as for the legitimacy of the survey. The survey was done via a process of oversampling, meaning that they were able to more accurately guage the larger population of the countries' actual Islamic representation. More so in the countries with smaller populations of Islam followers but nonetheless oversampling for the most part. This is a good thing and for anyone who wishes to debate the validity of the survey's values at the time taken would have a hard time arguing those facts in the face of statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, the suvey doesn't ask the question directly, what kind of violence is left up to the reader, though one could conclude that most respondents were contemplating suicide bombing. Making the s t r e t c h from violence to murder in your subtitle as you do is probably ok, but the survey questionaire does not state murder. In the Islamic world there is a difference between violence, and murder. There is also a difference here too. I don't want to say you have it all wrong because largely I believe that there is a problem with Islam, and Muslims who think that any violence against civillians is ok, we just have different ways of describing the problem and wanting to deal with it.

Another question asked which I find strikes a huge blow to the argument that Islam is interested in following UBL, is this question

IN EGYPT, TURKEY, INDONESIA, PAKISTAN, AND JORDAN, ASK ABOUT ‘PEOPLE.’ ELSEWHERE
ASK ABOUT ‘MUSLIMS’.
Q.30 In your opinion, how many (Muslims/people) in our country support Islamic extremists like al Qaeda –
would you say most, many, just some or very few?

The majority, in each of these countries responded that they either "didn't know", "very few", or "just some" rather then "many" or "most" except for Nigerian Muslims, in which the majority favored "most" and "many". That is interesting because we don't often here about Nigeria in the war on terror, or Nigerians being stopped at the airport, or plotting the next terrorist attack, yet, the majority of Nigerian Muslims believe the majority of their countrymen&women directly support Islamic extremists like al Quada.

Based on the numbers one would conclude that trying to net the greatest reduction in threat would result in an invasion of Nigeria. Perhaps not. The situation worldwide with Islam, and Islamic extremism is a complex and dynamic problem. What doesn't change is that followers of Islam are people just like you and I, and that they want similar things in life as well. A home, a family, job, opportunity to improve their children's lives. To believe that the entire group of them are here on the Earth simply to threaten our way of life is simply a fear.

I'd post the numbers but the copy/paste doesn't work great in the forum, check out the questionaire here...
pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/253topline.pdf

I would imagine that if we took a similar survey of non-muslims the numbers would not be much different, maybe 10-15% points but in large case, I think if the question were asked,

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend the United States from its enemies." and the answers were ofen, sometimes, rarely, never, don't know, we would see a breakdown, of number pretty similar.

A major failing of the questionaire was to ask about "suicide bombing", and "other forms of violence" together instead of seperately. There is no way to know wether most people that answered in any way, approve of suicide bombing over other forms of violence, heavily, rarely, almost never, not at all or only, or vice versa. It's legitimate to ask them together, but it would have been more insightful to ask it seperately.