Strange. I posted how the survey Brad posted does not support his conclusion, yet everyone seems more interested in the definition or racism. To restate what I said:

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.

Brad's original argument was that:

In many Islamic countries, intentionally murdering innocents in the name of Islam is considered acceptable by significant portions of the population. By significant, I mean near majorities or outright majorities.

Yet the numbers do not support this statement. I would like to hear Brad's response to this.

The main reason it's irrelevant is that the guy is merely trying to discourage discussion on this topic by throwing a loaded charge.

OK, I agree with that. It caused a lot of distraction, too. My semantic nitpicking was not helpful.

"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?"[/qoute]

That was the specific question.

In response, within the past couple of years, Jordan,  Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria all had outright majorities responded that there are cases where it is justified to target civilians.

How someone can argue that the stats don't back up the claim that significant percentages of Muslims thinks it is okay to murder civilians to the name of Islam escapes me.

How about this: It is NEVER acceptable to murder an innocent in the name of your religion EVER. If the answer to the question is not "never" then that means you think there are cases where it is okay to deliberately target civilians.

I think the survey demonstrates the sickness of Islam as an ideology. We aren't dealing with a handful of fanatics, we are dealing with outright majorities of the Islamic population in many of these countries that can envision targeting bystanders with suicide bombers (like flying planes into the World Trade Center) as being an acceptable option.

The numbers absolutely support my statement, TOV. >50% supporting murdering civilians is a majority.

 

www.climatecrisis.net/trailer/

The numbers absolutely support my statement, TOV. >50% supporting murdering civilians is a majority

However, their are only three countries in the survey were there are over 50% in support of such murder.

In response, within the past couple of years, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria all had outright majorities responded that there are cases where it is justified to target civilians.

You are incorrect about Pakistan.. The latest numbers say 69% believe such murder is never justified. In Egypt and Jordan, the majorities are becoming smaller. Hopefully, the majorities their will continue to become smaller.

"It is NEVER acceptable to murder an innocent in the name of your religion EVER."

How about murdering innocent people for your country?

"We aren't dealing with a handful of fanatics, we are dealing with outright majorities of the Islamic population in many of these countries that can envision targeting bystanders with suicide bombers (like flying planes into the World Trade Center) as being an acceptable option."

So....
Why is it that there isn't the same level of support in the same survey for Al Qaeda?
Why isn't there support for Islamic Extremists at the same level of majority in the survey?
Why isn't there the same level of support for Islamic extremism over modernization "in general"?

Maybe what's needed is revealed in the survey itself, i.e. why most Muslims blame their problems of lack of prosperity and the Muhammed Cartoon publication. Numbers like 90,87,86,84,81,80,79,73 are even clearer majorities stating western disrespect here, higher and with more clarity, then the supposed majority of support for murder numbers.

Maybe what's needed is more respect of Islam, perhaps hand in hand with more tolerance. Maybe just maybe so many Muslims wouldn't feel threatened, or support such violence if western civilization was more tolerant of things that were different i.e. Islam.

Certainly Abu Gharib has taught us a few lessons in respect or has it, no human, detainee, terrorist, murder whatever, should be treated the way our troops were allowed to treat those detainees, there is absolutely no excuse, and for crying out loud, they knew they were on watch beforehand. I'm not blaming the troops as a whole, only those who chose to do this, to take it to the extreme, because in the absence of rules this is what happens. The rules were the responsibility of the military and civillian leadership and what a fu*ked up job they did on that.

You're supposed to learn in kindergarden how to treat people, nothing complex there, basically as you would want to be treated yourself. Not all the detainees are terrorists, or criminals, some are just civillians caught in the crossfire, but one thing is certain, terrorist or civillian, they are all human, and that used to mean something to this country, before this war. I'm not entirely convinced that is means something to us anymore. Has humanity in our generation gone the way of good customer service? Optional but not to be expected?

It's actions like this that demonize our side of the fight against radical extremist groups. Wrongdoings like this seriously erode domestic support in nations that would rather support us on the whole then Al Qaeida, but if you give them the choice between murders that give the perception of respecting of the Islamic way of life and us, who clearly haven't done so in the past, well you can see how the numbers speak for themselves.

The survey numbers are numbers and as such cannot relay more than answers to relatively "for or against" questions leaving no room for gradations. Unfortunately, our (American) perceptions are strongly biased against what we perceive as "primitive" values. As to whether Islam is a religion of peace or not, it rests in how individuals identifying themselves as belonging to that religion (or any other) interpret or are taught to interpret those values. If you look at history, when a person hates another (or a group of others), or seeks to enslave another, demonization (or dehumanization) and justification are common mechanisms. A sentence or statement can be found in any of the Testaments/Kuran, etc. that can be used to such purpose. Those individuals overlook the Testaments/Kuran's OVERALL views and spirit.

Way to sneak that trailer into here. You just know this is going to be a firestorm issue.

I like the way Gore put it "Is it possible we should prepare for other threats besides terrorism?"

Um yeah. It is.

"If you look at history, when a person hates another (or a group of others), or seeks to enslave another, demonization (or dehumanization) and justification are common mechanisms. A sentence or statement can be found in any of the Testaments/Kuran, etc. that can be used to such purpose. Those individuals overlook the Testaments/Kuran's OVERALL views and spirit."

Exactly,

Brad and a few others, have in an effort to either state opinion or just damage the credibility of our own, stating that we don't know history but making it out as if he knows something we don't, and that we don't know Islam's true agenda, also denying it as a world religion is another talking point. Islam is as much a world religion as any other religion is an ideology. Arguing between the two is silly, do people not have as much right to follow their own ideology as religion. Also Brad you've made the point that Islam has no redeeming value whatsoever. So the 5 pillars of Islam don't qualify? How about Islam as an avenue for peace loving people just like you and me to find God?

If you are content to see only the bad and none of the good, then that's a pretty narrow minded position to take don't you think?
The pilgrimage to Mecca, giving to the poor, purification through fasting, daily I guess these none of these qualify as something good for people to do?

Read this...

"An individual may also give as much as he or she pleases as sadaqa-h, and does so preferably in secret. Although this word can be translated as "voluntary charity" it has a wider meaning.
The Prophet said, "Even meeting your brother with a cheerful face is an act of charity." The Prophet also said: "Charity is a necessity for every Muslim." He was asked: "What if a person has nothing?" The Prophet replied: "He should work with his own hands for his benefit and then give something out of such earnings in charity." The Companions of the Prophet asked: "What if he is not able to work?" The Prophet said: "He should help the poor and needy." The Companions further asked: "What if he cannot do even that?" The Prophet said: "He should urge others to do good." The Companions said: "What if he lacks that also?" The Prophet said: "He should check himself from doing evil. That is also an act of charity."

www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html

Judge for yourself Brad before you accuse the rest of us of knowing nothing about anything, including history, Do you not see/read anything good in the above excerpt? I do. I would wager if we polled I wouldn't be alone. Maybe sir, it is you who need to do some further study. Or will you deny that and slap us down for indicating that you might not be entirely correct. Please do go on to say my views along with everbody else's views are totally and completely, it exposes your position further. There is good and bad in everything in this world and existence, but Islam is not all bad to make the argument that it is quiet silly. Have I strawmanned ya or just misunderstood your earlier posts on the subject?

One more since I can't resist

Ever heard of Algebra? You know from Math class, I'm sure ya-all use some algebra,

Well it's Arabic for al-jabr. HaHa no redeeming qualties at all huh? I suppose it's all how you define redeeming.

Dare I post a wiki? I do indeed Dare.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi

"The numbers absolutely support my statement, TOV. >50% supporting murdering civilians is a majority" However, their are only three countries in the survey were there are over 50% in support of such murder. In response, within the past couple of years, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Nigeria all had outright majorities responded that there are cases where it is justified to target civilians. "You are incorrect about Pakistan.. The latest numbers say 69% believe such murder is never justified. In Egypt and Jordan, the majorities are becoming smaller. Hopefully, the majorities their will continue to become smaller."

Tova, you need to boost your reading comprehension significantly.  You claimed just above that you had shown me to be wrong.

Here was the sub-header to the article: "Significant percentages of Muslims thinks it's okay to murder civilians in the name of Islam..."

My entire article is only two sentences long. 

Focus..... In a survey of a bunch of Islamic countries, significant percentages of the Muslim population (or outright majorities) think it is okay to target civilians to defend Islam.  That was what I posted. That is what the survey shows. I didn't write that all the countries were by majority. And it's also irrelevant whether Pakistan currently or last year had a majority that supported it. 

Let's review:

1. Islamic apologists claim that Terrorism is the result of a tiny extremist minority who have "hijacked their religion"
2. These terrorists use suicide bombings to target civilians in the name of "defending Islam".
3. Surveys of citizens in various Islamic countries show that significant percentages of the population and in some cases outright majorities actually do think it is justifiable to defend Islam by targeting civilians.

Therefore: Islam can hardly be claimed to be the "religion of peace" if significant percentages of its adherents believe it's okay to murder innocent people in its name.  A similar poll of Christians or Hindus or any other religion would not have had these results.  Even 36% of Muslims living in France think it's justifiable to target innocent civilians with suicide bombers in the name of Islam.  This is not a peaceful religion.

Since one assumes that the people who follow this religion are no more predetermined towards murderous violence than anyone else, what is the variable that makes millions of people think it is acceptable to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings or blow up a shrapnel filled bomb in a cafe? Answer: Islam.

 

"It is NEVER acceptable to murder an innocent in the name of your religion EVER." How about murdering innocent people for your country?

That's a strawman argument. First, it's too vague. Define "for your country"?  Second, the point is, it's never acceptable to murder people for an IDEA. A BELIEF.

You can disagree with me. Isn't that nice? And despite you disagreeing with my position, I don't think one of my options to defend my position is to have you murdered.  In fact, even if you insulted some of my sacred beliefs, I would, amazingly, not insist on your extermination.

If you condemned my world view or insulted my wife, I would still not arrange for murder or the murder of your family.  Does that help the poll make more sense now? Muslims, because of their beliefs, are murdering innocent people when their beliefs -- Islam -- are challenged, insulted, whatever.

If the pope says something that Muslims don't like, people get murdered. If the Danes release cartoons that Muslims don't like, people get murdered.  And for years, we've had weak equivicators try to draw comparisons with Christians or whatever when all the while all you needed to do was ask Muslims and a significant percentage (or majority in some cases) would happily tell you that there are times when 'dem infidels just needed a'killin.

Brad and a few others, have in an effort to either state opinion or just damage the credibility of our own, stating that we don't know history but making it out as if he knows something we don't, and that we don't know Islam's true agenda, also denying it as a world religion is another talking point. Islam is as much a world religion as any other religion is an ideology. Arguing between the two is silly, do people not have as much right to follow their own ideology as religion. Also Brad you've made the point that Islam has no redeeming value whatsoever. So the 5 pillars of Islam don't qualify? How about Islam as an avenue for peace loving people just like you and me to find God? If you are content to see only the bad and none of the good, then that's a pretty narrow minded position to take don't you think?

I think you have no credibility because you're an equivicator. You mistake a lack of decision making to being endless tolerance. You want to avoid having to make conclusions or take a stand at all costs. And that's your right. But in the meantime, other people will draw conclusions.

This article isn't about whether there are good parts of Islam. It isn't about what Islam's "real" agenda is. It isn't even about whether the Arabic world which happened to be Muslim at the time invented Algebra (In grown-up countries, we don't give credit for inventions to religions, we give them to people or countries).

This article is simply pointing out the results of a survey: Signfiicant percentages of Muslims think it is justifiable to target civilians (with suicide bombers and such) to "defend" Islam.  That's it.

When the adults of the world had to go and defeat Nazism, I am sure there were warm fuzzy people arguing that there were nice Nazis. I wonder if a survey of Nazis in Germany would have had double digit "Yes" answers to targeting civilians to defend Nazism. And hey, Hitler was nice to animals and a vegetarian.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. What they DO matters. And the facts are, Muslims have been going around for decades now murdering innocent people in the name of their religion and weak equivicators have tried to make excuses and argued that it's only a tiny fringe group that thinks this way. Now we have a survey that shows, no, it's not a tiny fringe group. It's millions and millions of Muslims who feel this way.

Judge for yourself Brad before you accuse the rest of us of knowing nothing about anything, including history, Do you not see/read anything good in the above excerpt? I do. I would wager if we polled I wouldn't be alone. Maybe sir, it is you who need to do some further study. Or will you deny that and slap us down for indicating that you might not be entirely correct. Please do go on to say my views along with everbody else's views are totally and completely, it exposes your position further. There is good and bad in everything in this world and existence, but Islam is not all bad to make the argument that it is quiet silly. Have I strawmanned ya or just misunderstood your earlier posts on the subject?

What exactly am I not entirely correct about?  My article points out that significant percentages of Muslims thinks it is justifiable to target civilians in the name of Islam. Your wiki entry won't change that. 

Similarly, a wiki entry showing that innovation occurred in Islamic countries in the past is irrelevant as well because they are in the past. When I say (elsewhere, in a different article) that I don't think Islam has any redeemable value, I am talking about the present.  And even if I wasn't talking about the present, you wuold have to demonstrate that Algebra occurred as a result of being a Muslim as opposed to say the trading caravans of the middle east needing it. I don't credit Geometry to Zeus any more than I credit Calculus to Jesus. So I'm not inclined to give Allah credit for Algebra.

I think you know history. I just think you lack the ability to take principled stands. Nobody's really wrong and nobody's really right. You'd rather have other people take responsibility and make decisions. And that's fine. We will. And you can make yourself feel better by standing back and condemning people who have to deal with the real world.  And that's your right. You have that right because people who make decisions have given you that right and defended your right to sit around in comfort complaining about every action other people take.

What exactly am I not entirely correct about? My article points out that significant percentages of Muslims thinks it is justifiable to target civilians in the name of Islam.

What about the Cold War? Vietnamese villages were bombed to defend democracy. Pinochet's reign of terror was supported to defend democracy. "Our bastard" Saddam was supported in his war against Iran to defend democracy.

Westerners have always, always been willing to see the deaths of civilians in quite large numbers to defend their ideologies. Must we abandon democracy too because people are willing to kill innocents to protect it?

If Islam is an ideology which calls for the deaths of civilians to protect it, then democracy is no better. The 20th century is full of examples of civilians sacrificed on the altar of democracy.