what always amazes me in these types of discussions is the fact that there are ppl that will jump over themselves to defend the Muslim religion. Especially when these same ppl will jump over themselves to condemn Christianity at the drop of a hat.

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.

TARGETS civilians. No, in the Cold War the US military did not intentionally target civilians.  And civilians weren't killed over a belief, even accidentally. 

Let's be clear here: The survey was about TARGETING civilians as in suicide bombers and the like. They are trying to murder civilians.  Civilians aren't a means to an end in the attack, they are the goal. 

Muslims aren't killing civilians in the process of some other tangible objective. I.e. they aren't attacking a war production factory and some civilians happened to be killed. The civilians are the TARGET. This has been stated over and over again.

Please, by all means, explain how murdering civilians was the goal of the United States in any war. Even Hiroshima in World War II was not targeting civilians but its warp making capacity (a number of cities in Japan were not bombed in World War II such as Kyoto because of the lack of military value in doing so).

Do you understand the distinction:  Flying a hijacked plane into the Pentagon is one thing. Civilians died but they were attacking a military target. Flying a hijacked plane into the WTC is a whole different matter.

But let's carry out the "evil US" to its logical conclusion:

If Islam is an ideology which calls for the deaths of civilians to protect it, then democracy is no better.

Then why doesn't the United States simply incinerate every man, woman, and child in Iraq and the rest of the middle east? We have the capability. There is no one who could stop the United States from doing it.  If the US is "no better" then why not?  

Do you think you could get more than a single digit percentage of Americans to agree that it would be justifiable to annihilate the middle east to "defend democracy"?  If Iran invaded democratic Iraq, should we exterminate Iran?  If we are no better, why shouldn't we?

The moral equivalence stuff gets really old here.  Here we have it in black and white that millions of Muslims think it is justified to intentionally go out and murder civilians with suicide bombers and the like -- attacks like 9/11 and what do we get? That this is no different than civilians who happen lose their lives in a struggle between opposing military forces?

Brad, why even bother? These discussions always go to the point where America is the actual terrorists, and that the poor, downtrodden Muslims wouldn't bother anyone if the big bad America would just leave them alone....

Personally, it makes me sick to my stomach. The so-called "liberals" rally around the same flag of those that would strip them of every one of their rights. It is easy to say what they are saying....until those they are defending are forcing them to bow 5 times a day toward the Holy City....

According to the press the British PM had to dissuade Bush from bombing Al Jazeera in Doha. Al Jazeera is a civilian organisation. Ergo George Bush is not against bombing civilians for military or political gain. And if he's willing to do it, I don't think it's that rare a belief. US presidents aren't known for the originality of their policies.

Flying a hijacked plane into the WTC is a whole different matter.

How? Tokyo was firebombed as an economic target. The WTC was attacked as an economic target. Both produced goods and services needed for the purposes of war and so were attacked. Both mostly involved the deaths of civilians.

Many western nations have declared war on terrorism, so they should expect their economic institutions to be attacked. They do the same, using contacts in the international banking system to freeze and isolate terrorist bank accounts. The nature of their technological and diplomatic superiority makes civilian deaths largely unnecessary.

But this is getting off the point. We have no information about US or other western attitudes towards killing in defence of democracy/Christianity/the flying spaghetti monster, so all we can do is state our opinions. As you've told me before, we can't argue opinions as if they're facts.

Brad, why even bother? These discussions always go to the point where America is the actual terrorists, and that the poor, downtrodden Muslims wouldn't bother anyone if the big bad America would just leave them alone.... Personally, it makes me sick to my stomach. The so-called "liberals" rally around the same flag of those that would strip them of every one of their rights. It is easy to say what they are saying....until those they are defending are forcing them to bow 5 times a day toward the Holy City....

G'ah, and it's people like you who label, generalize, bash, and slam those who are liberal. It's disgusting, I dont do it to you. At least show some respect, and try to do the same.

Grow the heck up.

Geesh.

that was kinda harsh...I am going to re-write what I typed...

What I am trying to say, Lucas, is that the majority of the liberals that I know (as friends, media, at work, on here, ect) DO defend the Muslims. I hear constantly that we are the problem....If that upsets you, then so be it....I guess you will just need to be upset.

But, to be honest here...I see the same thing here. Some of the "liberals" in this very thread are defending it. But have I ever seen any of them defend Christianity? NO, with a resounding NO!!! Instead, Christianity is mocked. When the Muslims went crazy with the cartoon, they were defended. When 9/11 happened, they were defended. When Muslims go insane and blow ppl up, or hijack planes and fly them into buildings, or use human shields, or do anything that they do....America is to be blamed, and the poor Muslims are to be defended.

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of your version of "liberalism". You want to label? I rarely speak out about this type of stuff....but personally, I believe that Muslims should be dealt with the same way that they deal with others....total destruction. Total annihilation. If they want to screw with us....then I say hand them their asses on a plate of glass....

We are in a war. We have been in a war for over 2 decades now. The muslims know it...when are we going to step up to the plate and deal with it?

Sorry, Brad...I probably got off target here....but I am truly getting sick and tired of ppl who enjoy thier freedoms defend those who want nothing but to destroy those very freedoms for politics....

But this is getting off the point. We have no information about US or other western attitudes towards killing in defence of democracy/Christianity/the flying spaghetti monster, so all we can do is state our opinions. As you've told me before, we can't argue opinions as if they're facts.

This is true. All this survey demonstrates is that millions of Muslims do indeed see Suicide bombings as justifiable in the name of Islam. 

I don't see Islam as primarily a religion. I see it as an ideology.  Be honest -- do you REALLY think that there is a single nation on this planet in which the majority or near majority of Christians or Hindu or whatever would answer that it is okay to target innocents to defend their religion?

The steady flow of violence from Muslims aren't the fringe. They represent large portions of the population.  

I understand TOV's question for I too was a bit confused with the survey. Now that Brad has, kindly, explained it about 20 times I can see his meaning.

I do love the fact that those here going against Brad's point are actually ignoring the fact that a large number of Muslims, even if it's less than half, believe it's OK to kill innocent people in the name of Islam. And no one has yet been able to explain why those Muslims who "supposedly" denounce terrorism are not being more vocal. How come is it that I have yet to know or hear a single Muslim who thinks terrorism is wrong? Even Cacto and Bahu seem to think (judging buy what I get from their responses to any article about Muslims, Islam and the war) that the US, it's citizens and allies somehow deserve what they have gotten, which to me translates as being OK with terrorist tactics. So many Americans think that Diplomacy is the answer to our problems with Muslims and Islam, sorry to say I don't see this overwhelming number from Muslims. Diplomacy is not a word I hear quite often coming from a Muslim leader.

How come is it that I have yet to know or hear a single Muslim who thinks terrorism is wrong?

Just as you fear for my terrorist leanings, so too do I fear for your reading comprehension. Didn't you read the survey? There were large majorities in a number of Islamic countries expressly stating they believe that suicide bombing is wrong, Osama bin Laden is a poor role model (paraphrasing here; it's a little more complex) etc etc.

For the record I'm not okay with terrorist tactics, but nor am I okay with tactics that cause predominately civilian deaths (such as landmines which aren't properly disposed of and to some extent cluster bombing). Civilians should be off-limits. But because they aren't considered off-limits by either side, I think it's a tad hypocritical to only denounce the other side when they hit civilians. At least with suicide bombers you know they meant it.

but....let me ask you this: How can civilians be totally off-limits, when the enemy (terrorists) use them as human shields, dress like them, act like them (all the way up until they detonate the bomb strapped to themselves)?

I am not for slaughtering innocent civilians....and wholesale killing of civilians should be denounced. But, when terrorists USE that thinking against us by melting into the civilian population, why should we be held responsible for civilian deaths? When a terrorist dresses like a civilian, and uses women & children as human shields (while the women seem to WANT to be used in that way), then the civilians are no longer "innocent civilians".

Harsh? perhaps....but we lose wars by trying to be nice. Wars are won via an iron fist and the heel of a steel boot. I do not wish ill on any civilians....but I also did not wish ill on those who died in the 9/11 attacks either...or those who are blown up in the streets of Baghdad by terrorists either......

It seems very convenient to say: No Civilian Deaths!!!!

But try to say that when those civilians are strapped with bombs, carrying assault rifles, and trying to put you in the grave or make you convert (your choice there....pray to allah, or die to his followers).

I also want to add: America is not TARGETING civilians. This has been brought up time and time and time again...but yet, you continue to ignore that. Terrorist purposely TARGET civilians.

Where is the difference in that? You keep saying that we target civilians. We are not targeting civilians. It is a war, so yes, civilians will end up dying....but we are not targeting them. Terrorists walk into a shopping center and blow themselves up, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TAKING AS MANY CIVILIANS WITH THEM....that is the difference that you (and the rest that stand with you) refuse to accept.

Didn't you read the survey? There were large majorities in a number of Islamic countries expressly stating they believe that suicide bombing is wrong, Osama bin Laden is a poor role model (paraphrasing here; it's a little more complex) etc etc.

Cacto - which country has large majorities that don't think it's every okay to murder innocents in the name of Islam? I can't seem to find it in the survey. The best I could find was Indonesia in which merely 30% or so of the population thought it was okay under certain circumstances to murder innocent people in the name of Islam. And that was only in the most recent survey, a few years ago, it was about half.

A large majority in my mind would be something akin to what American Christians or Jews would answer if the question was about defending their own religion which I suspect would be single digit.

Consider this: Fundamental Christians belief abortion is murder. Literally the murder of unborn children. (I happen to be pro choice so I don't agree with them). This in turn makes abortion doctors professional murderers.  And yet, despite millions of fundamental Christians, we have had only a tiny handful of people who have resorted to violence to stop this.  And they aren't fighting to defend a concept. They believe they are helping stop the murder of innocent children.

By contrast, Muslims will murder innocent people if someone writes, draws, or says something that they interpret as critical of Islam. It's not isolated incidents, it's very consistent.  You may recall the leader of Iran demanding the execution of the author of the Satanic Verses back in the 1980s. A book.

For Muslims, resorting to violence isn't some fringe belief, it's a core belief for many millions of them. 

I also want to add: America is not TARGETING civilians. This has been brought up time and time and time again...but yet, you continue to ignore that. Terrorist purposely TARGET civilians.

This is a key point because while large percentages of Muslims see themselves at war with the West over the battle of ideology and with significant percetnages thinking that it is okay to target civilians to do so....they are fortunate because the West does not feel the same way.

The ultimate proof that the west can't be morally equated to the Islamists is that the west could solve the Islamic problem in an afternoon if it were willing to target innocent civilians to defend its interests and beliefs.

The only thing that is keeping the radical Islamic countries alive is the fact that the west doesn't target civilians. That's why I get annoyed at this moral equivicating. 

Sadly, I think time is going to make this even more clear. At some point, Islamic zealots will get their hand on a nuclear weapon and they will annihilate some city somewhere and you'll find in polls that significant percentages of Muslims supported what they did. And you'll have some pathetic apologists coming on and saying "Well the US bombed Hiroshima" ignoring the fact that the US could deal with Iran and the like at any time they chose to with massive force if it were willing to sacrifice innocent civilians in the process.

I see it as an ideology.

Tell me, why do you see it as an ideology? Do you see other "so called religions," as merely ideologies? If not, then why not, what sets them apart/makes them different?

We are in a war. We have been in a war for over 2 decades now. The muslims know it...when are we going to step up to the plate and deal with it?

You, and those who believe the way you do may be at war, but I'm not. I'm still going to go for peace, etc...

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of your version of "liberalism". You want to label? I rarely speak out about this type of stuff....but personally, I believe that Muslims should be dealt with the same way that they deal with others....total destruction. Total annihilation. If they want to screw with us....then I say hand them their asses on a plate of glass....

But not ALL muslims do. You don't see american muslims walking around shooting people do you? You have yet to make any clarification upon which muslims, no point of differentiating. It's all "them," and know...who them, or which them.

That's your right, and while i may not agree with it - i would fight for it. That's just one facet of who I am.

But, to be honest here...I see the same thing here. Some of the "liberals" in this very thread are defending it. But have I ever seen any of them defend Christianity? NO, with a resounding NO!!! Instead, Christianity is mocked. When the Muslims went crazy with the cartoon, they were defended. When 9/11 happened, they were defended. When Muslims go insane and blow ppl up, or hijack planes and fly them into buildings, or use human shields, or do anything that they do....America is to be blamed, and the poor Muslims are to be defended.

I would defend anyone that i felt should be defended. Whether they are christians, jews, muslims, whomever. My eyes see no differences, no betters. Likewise, I would call things assinine, when they are assinine in my eyes. i.e. i'd call a sheep a sheep

What I am trying to say, Lucas, is that the majority of the liberals that I know (as friends, media, at work, on here, ect) DO defend the Muslims. I hear constantly that we are the problem....If that upsets you, then so be it....I guess you will just need to be upset.

It does, because there are cases where we ARE the problem. I admit that there are cases where we are not, but I am more than willing to admit that we have caused problems by being to...boyant, too...flaunting. I.e. our administrations, can be arrogant. Sometimes we've stepped on others while we went on towards our goal, whatever it may be that would progress our country, or our agenda forward. I.e. sometimes there needs to be thought of the consequences before things are done.

You know why i am more than willing to admit this? Cause I want it to change, I want our nation to be a solution, not a problem.