I have been thinking about this for the last couple of days, and I have realized a few things. The first thing I realized is that I have been arrogant. When I said I disproved Brad, that was arrogance more than anything else. I was a jerk, and I apologize for that.

I also realized my disagreement with Brad boils down to different ways to interpret the information. Brad includes people who rarely support suicide bombing with those who support bombing more often. I prefer to keep them in a separate category. I have realized, however, that this is not a very strong argument, and is very easy to punch holes through. That is the thing with polls: they can be interpreted to say whatever the reader wants them to say.

There is, however, another part that I have not yet articulated very clearly. In three of the four nations with past data, the support for suicide bombers has declined. More people oppose suicide bombers than in the past, at least in these countries. I fully expected the opposite. I expected to see increased or stable support, but instead I saw a decrease; a shift away from support of violence. This seemed to contradict your conclusion and inspired me to post. At the time, I thought I was correcting a factual inaccuracy.

I am realistic enough to know that Islam is much more violent than other religions. I do hope, however, that Islam will become less violent with time, like how Christianity has become less violent since the crusades. Unfortunately, I do not expect to see this in my lifetime.

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?

I've explained it before to you. Briefly: Islam doesn't just involve ones relationship with their creator, it also sets for a system of government with specific laws known as the Sharia.

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.

Um, Yea, we have.  There have been Muslims in the United States who have shot up schools (Jewish schools) in the name of Islam. There have been Muslims who have opened fire in airports in the name of Islam. That's just two in recent times that I can think of.  WHile there are nuts out there who shoot up stuff anyway, these are examples of people who did it in the name of Islamic Jihad.

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

Wow. How noble you are. I am sure people like you would have found a way to prevent World War II as well...

It does, because there are cases where we ARE the problem.

Provide one case where American civilians deserved to die.  What "problem" were we involved in that justified 9/11? Or the previous attacks for that matter.

In the Jim Crow days, you would probably have been one of those people defending lynchings. "Well, he was lookin at that white girl with his EYES! I don't condone what they did but he shoudln't have been looking at no white girl!"

It's exactly the same mentality. Murderious violence justified by one party in retaliation for a non-violent "insult" that is often so obscure as to be ridiculous.  This isn't a new thing. There have always been apologists for monsters and there have always been monsters willing to murder over perceived slights.

I also realized my disagreement with Brad boils down to different ways to interpret the information. Brad includes people who rarely support suicide bombing with those who support bombing more often. I prefer to keep them in a separate category. I have realized, however, that this is not a very strong argument, and is very easy to punch holes through. That is the thing with polls: they can be interpreted to say whatever the reader wants them to say. There is, however, another part that I have not yet articulated very clearly. In three of the four nations with past data, the support for suicide bombers has declined. More people oppose suicide bombers than in the past, at least in these countries. I fully expected the opposite. I expected to see increased or stable support, but instead I saw a decrease; a shift away from support of violence. This seemed to contradict your conclusion and inspired me to post. At the time, I thought I was correcting a factual inaccuracy.

The key really is the interpretation. 

Here is the premise of my argument:

For years we have been told that Islam is the religion of peace and that a "fringe" (that word is used regularly) group of fanatics advocate suicide bombings and the like.

But a poll comes out in which Muslims themselves are just asked directly about this and it turns out that huge numbers of them actually can imagine scenarios wehre suicide bombings are justified.

To me, a fringe means like 1%, maybe 2%. I think deep down everyone in this discussion knows that you'd probably get less than 1% of Christians who think suicide bombings and the like are justified to "defend Christianity".  Especially considering the context of "Defend" which in this case is largely about perceived insults to Islam (like cartoons or criticism or books or whatever, we're not talking about people defending their home from marauding armies or something).

But it's clearly not a fringe. As soon as the results ended up being greater than 10% total, that tells me that suicide bombings are pretty widely accepted.

Consider this: MORE Muslims (as a %) can justify murdering innocent civilians to "Defend Islam" in certain cases than the % of Americans who approve of Bush's job approval. 

Consider this: MORE Muslims (as a %) can justify murdering innocent civilians to "Defend Islam" in certain cases than the % of Americans who approve of Bush's job approval.

Interesting. Both the Muslim faith and the Bush administration are "authoritarian" entities. People who follow either of those do so unquestioning and are violently apposed to anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking. Could be that in any population, some 30% are authoritarian followers.

There's an interesting book out about authoritarians called "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean. It explains a lot about people who support the Bush administration no matter what and also about the thinking of religious fanatics.

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

What do you propose be done about this?

In the Jim Crow days, you would probably have been one of those people defending lynchings. "Well, he was lookin at that white girl with his EYES! I don't condone what they did but he shoudln't have been looking at no white girl!" It's exactly the same mentality. Murderious violence justified by one party in retaliation for a non-violent "insult" that is often so obscure as to be ridiculous. This isn't a new thing. There have always been apologists for monsters and there have always been monsters willing to murder over perceived slights.

Brad, there is where you assume. It makes you look silly.

I'm not that type. Just because i share the same label, doesn't make me exactly the same.

What I would've done, is pointed out that: yes, the lynching was wrong, but did he have the right to do it, yes. However, there are the consequences that the individual must face. I.e. the law.

I may not agree with what he did, but there's no doubt he had the right/ability to do such. He just would've had (hopefully) the law to deal with, i.e. he'd have to be responsible for his actions.



Something I don't think you really get...is that there are other mentalities. You also bash/dish things without taking a second and looking outside your bias/viewpoint.

You don't seem to be willing - and i might be wrong- to step back, and go "hmmm, lets take a look at this from their point of view for a second. Doing such just might lead to a better understanding.

Provide one case where American civilians deserved to die. What "problem" were we involved in that justified 9/11? Or the previous attacks for that matter.

Perhaps I worded my point wrong.

I don't intended to justify those who use violence, unless it is without a doubt for defense. What I intended to do, is point out that there are muslims caught up in this debacle.

It's like, people assuming that all americans back GWB in the Iraq war. There are, obviously, those who don't.

Wow. How noble you are. I am sure people like you would have found a way to prevent World War II as well...

If it meant keeping millions of people dying, then yes. I admit, I would've been willing to have taken out hitler and his crew, if it would've meant stopping the war.

Um, Yea, we have. There have been Muslims in the United States who have shot up schools (Jewish schools) in the name of Islam. There have been Muslims who have opened fire in airports in the name of Islam. That's just two in recent times that I can think of. WHile there are nuts out there who shoot up stuff anyway, these are examples of people who did it in the name of Islamic Jihad.

There's been christians and others of other faiths who have done the same. Now, I'm not saying what they did is justified...I'm saying don't point all the fingers at Islam.

I've explained it before to you. Briefly: Islam doesn't just involve ones relationship with their creator, it also sets for a system of government with specific laws known as the Sharia.

Judaism has it's laws, I believe christianity had theirs. What's the difference? They've both, at various points in time, been pushed by ill thought means.

I personally find it hard to believe, that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. It's...well, unbecoming and hypocritical.

Did you forget Soddom and Gomora? Just and fyi lucas.....they were filled with unbelievers and sodomites.

Interesting. Both the Muslim faith and the Bush administration are "authoritarian" entities. People who follow either of those do so unquestioning and are violently apposed to anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking. Could be that in any population, some 30% are authoritarian followers.

That's idiotic.  Bush is no more authoritarian than any other President.  When Bush starts sending the ATF and such to round up Americans with incorrect views (like Clinton did in Waco and Ruby Ridge) then we can talk.

While I don't currently approve of Bush's job handling, it has nothing to do with any so-called authoritarian behavior but rather his incompetence and poor budget handling.

What do you propose be done about this?

For starters, I'd like to see our government narrow the focus of the war on terror to be the war on Radical Islam and to knock off the "religion of peace" talk.

Brad, there is where you assume. It makes you look silly. I'm not that type. Just because i share the same label, doesn't make me exactly the same. What I would've done, is pointed out that: yes, the lynching was wrong, but did he have the right to do it, yes. However, there are the consequences that the individual must face. I.e. the law.

. You say that you're not like that then indeed state that you are like that by indicating that the person who did the lynching had the right to do it.

No, he did NOT have the right to lynch someone. We do not have the right to do violence to anyone over a belief or opinion or what have you.

Something I don't think you really get...is that there are other mentalities. You also bash/dish things without taking a second and looking outside your bias/viewpoint. You don't seem to be willing - and i might be wrong- to step back, and go "hmmm, lets take a look at this from their point of view for a second. Doing such just might lead to a better understanding.

Empathy is not something I'm short on. I get that there are other viewpoints.  What you don't seem to get is that not all viewpoints are equal.

There are also viewpoints that only exist in the theoretical realm and viewpoints that work in the real world.  I may find it interesting to debaute or discuss theoretical viewpoints but I never kid myself that a theoretical viewpoint is one that has any practical value.

Many of your viewpoints are theoretical that you think somehow could apply in the real world. Rather than dealing wiht the world as it is, you seem to wish very very hard that the world just worked the way you wish it did.

But the part of your viewpoint that I find frustrating is that it's self-aggrandizing. You don't care about the logical conclusions of your viewpoint and their consequences. You seem to care more about appearing like a "good guy".  And I'll grant you that you have the right to take nebulous, feel-good positions on issues. But don't cry foul when you're passed by people who make tough practical decisions and bypass your warm fuzzy thoughts on the matter.

Even in World War II there were plenty of people who wanted to pretend that there were other alternatives to war. But serious people had to make serious decisions and they did so.

In reality, the people who don't, won't or can't act don't really matter. They're not participants in making the world turn.  So if someone wants to sit there and pretend that Muslims and Christians are no better or no worse than each other, that's their right. But serious people will look at the facts and make their own conclusions and act on those conclusions.

 

There's been christians and others of other faiths who have done the same. Now, I'm not saying what they did is justified...I'm saying don't point all the fingers at Islam.

NAME EXAMPLES. Name ONE example of a Christian going into an airport and gunning down people in the name of God (or something similar).  Also note that Muslims make up a tiny % of our population while Christians make up around 90%. 

QUIT morally equating the two unless you have FACTS to back it up. Don't waste my time with bullshit.

Judaism has it's laws, I believe christianity had theirs. What's the difference? They've both, at various points in time, been pushed by ill thought means.

I PROVIDED A LINK to the Sharia right in the part you quoted! You could have read it. How many Christian theocratic nations are there? Do you even know what the goal of radical Islam is?

Educate yourself before wasting time here or quit participating.

You should consider the fact that, if Islam is really at war as a whole against us, then it's doing a quite poor job winning. But in the scale of their actions, they couldn't do better.

explanation:

Extremists Islamists are using terrorism against us. what is terrorism? In short, it's a guerrila warfare targeting only the civilian population, in order to spread terror, and lower morale.

They cannot hope to destroy us all. They haven't ennough people or weaponry to blow us all. heck, America & Europe are so spreaded, they would need most of the world's Muslims to actually manage to kill us all. Even with Nuclear weaponry, if Iran manage to gets it, won't be ennough.

They cannot hope to conquer us all either. They would need, in theory, massive occupation army to actually beat our military fair and square (not invasion can work based solely on terrorism). The story posted in "the shape of things to come" was quite laughable. Come on, when (and HOW?) will we see the first Troop transports coming from Iran to conquer New York?

Any kind of warfare you describe as "acceptable" would be a total suicide on the islamists' part. Why? Because, let's face it, we are the best at this game. That's why we ended up owning the world during Colonial Empires. even now, our weaponry is vastly superior, and we have the guts to defend against an openly-declared ennemy to the bitter end.

That's leave the pussy tactic called "terrorism", and that's about all they can do to us. The bee that will eventually drive the bear crazy. Simply small stings, while never stopping.

But that's where we are kinda idiot. Their only goal is to plunge us into a total fear, driving us to a frenzy where we will act stupidly.

It worked. Americans are more afraid than ever, so are most of the European countries. but America is about 300% more scared than any of them. Even if they are the ones who are the least vulnerable. Your politicans played right into the terrorists' hand. "We are in danger. Alert Orange Level"

Did you forget Soddom and Gomora? Just and fyi lucas.....they were filled with unbelievers and sodomites.

Have you thought about:

"Reinterpretation" of the bible?

Religious symbolism?

Fact versus Fiction?

You say that you're not like that then indeed state that you are like that by indicating that the person who did the lynching had the right to do it. No, he did NOT have the right to lynch someone. We do not have the right to do violence to anyone over a belief or opinion or what have you.

We DO have the right to do what we want, but we also have to face the consequences of our actions. i.e. responsibility for ones actions.