"The 20th century is full of examples of civilians sacrificed on the altar of democracy."

I would have to say carpet bombing entire cities during world war 2, with incendary munitions, to destroy them outright, would support the above statement. How about dropping nuclear weapons on two largely undamaged and civillian targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Certainly there was a military presence in those cities, worth targeting, and in the result killing nearly a 100,000 civillians. Napalm in Vietnam.

"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."

Murdering civillians, perhaps not the goal, but certainly the result, for an end to the war, was the reason the bombs were dropped on Japan, that and avoiding a larger loss of life estimated at being 1 million soliders/civillians with an Invasion of the homeland.

If you were an airman during World War 2, you would be murdering "for your country" would you not? I mean carrying out the mission yes, but if your mission was to drop incendary bombs on cities, and those bombs would burn entire cities, even though it were necessary to win the war would dropping those bombs not be murder?

"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?"

I don't think if you polled the people in other countries, people would defend their religion as strongly as Muslims, certainly not in favor of the violence. However, I certainly believe that if people were asked, if it were necessary to sometimes kill civilians in an effort to win a war of survival against an enemy force or foe, that you could see support for that. Probably not a majority though. Part of being Muslim is daily/hourly devotion to your religion, Islam plays a much larger portion of daily life then do the other religions for a larger percentage Islamic followers. As you have stated and I agree it is largely the accepted way of life in those countries, and what makes those percentages understandable, is that there isn't a great deal of secularism in the Islamic world, seperation of church and state isn't a common theme.

If people in our country were engaged in a war, and asked if it was sometimes rarely or never ok to attack civillians, in order to defend our way of life, that certainly would find some support, just as it has in overseas.

Again, however in these countries there is dramatically less support for AQ, and Islamic fundamentalism vs modernization. That means at least to me, that Muslims want their way of life, and want to be left alone, as well as respected for who they are not made to be westerners.

"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."

We do not have daily homocide bombing, or daily violence inside the United States perpertrated by Muslims, defending Islam don't even go there. There are nuts of course, but to say all Islam, all peoples of Islam are capable or want that is just flat out wrong. You can call me an apologist if you want, but I've made no apology, just offered a different way of looking at it, automatically wrong of course, and I've stated that your facts do support your conclusions. But there are more to those facts, more background issues, in the Islamic world.

Take for instance the protests against the pope in Turkey, they've been ongoing for a few weeks now. Nobody has died yet lol. When the pope gets there meets with the church in Turkey, of course there will be an increase in the intensity of protest, but there won't be outright war. That's just silly.

BTW this airport shooting you keep bringing up?
Is it this one?
archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/

"Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn added: "It appears this was an isolated incident."
A Bush administration source concurred with that statement, adding that nothing suggested it was anything other than a criminal act."
"Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man who was charged in the shooting, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant shortly before he went to the airport."

Hardly an act of war/terrorism, being a man on the edge and upset, carrying a gun, and deciding in his mind, that because people had made fun of him that he should shoot them. Yeah that's all Islams' fault.

"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."

Ok Brad. I wish you'd stop bringing up the airport thing.

While I'm convinced it's true that there are some Muslims in the world, that would rather see our country gone, I don't believe they are a majority. I further believe that that notion is not unique to Islam either. There are lots of people who would like it if the US wasn't a part of the world. But that's not going to happen. What also isn't going to happen is us taking on Islam as a whole, in an agressive way.

According to your survey, there is support for defending Islam, one could say, at any costs, and further, there is also more support for that then Al Qaeda. There is no question that Islamic extremism is a threat, but concluding that the entire world Islamic population would be ok with suicide bombing and violence against westerners, is a bit of a stretch.

Since there is a relatively large number of of people on here, I'm curious if there are any Muslims that would like to join the discussion, at the risk of being automatically wrong, Maybe a follower of Islam could offer shed some light on the situation.

One more to add here before anybody starts getting fresh saying civillians have never been targeted before in history...

"It is estimated that raids of Allied air forces on the Third Reich killed between 305,000 and 600,000 civilans of which about 80,000 were children The primary objective of these attacks was to damage economic infrastructure to seriously weaken the enemy's ability to fight the war, in line with the doctrines of Total war."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing

I wanted to bring back some facts with me today, regarding the numbers in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, this is truely disturbing, and we were the ones who choose to do it.

"In estimating the death toll from the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, the many victims who died months or years after the bombing as a result of radiation exposure, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. That said, it is estimated that by December 1945, as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects. In Nagasaki, roughly 74,000 people died of the bomb and its after-effects with the death toll from two bombings around 214,000 people. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

The V1 and V2 weapons Vengence weapons of the 3rd reich were largely unguided and in no way could they have been targeted to hit anything less then the size of a city, so there was no way for them to not be aimed into areas where civillians would be.

More...

"At the beginning World War II, the bombing of cities was a normal practice of the German Luftwaffe.In the first stages of war, the Germans carried out mainly massive indiscriminate bombings of towns and cities in Poland (1939), with Wieluń being the first city destroyed by 75%"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombing_of_cities

75% good gosh. Wikipedia yes I know, the narrow hourglass of vision of the simple-uneducated and 'nieve' participator in online discussions.

Still more?

"Aerial area bombardment is the policy of indiscriminate bombing of an enemy's cities, for the purpose of destroying the enemy's means of producing military materiel, communications, government centres and civilian morale. It differs from the use of bombs to destroy military targets."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing

I guess civilians have not been off limits in the past, and if the enemy does it why shouldn't we be able to? All is fair in love and war, isn't that how the saying goes?

Here's a little update on the latest Muslim violence in Turkey forthcoming the Pope.

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/02/turkey.shots/index.html

"I fired the shots for God," Ak said as he sat handcuffed inside a police van outside the consulate. "Inshallah (God willing), this will be a spark, a starter for Muslims."

Oh yeah lets all get on board and be violent here's the chance

Wait for it wait wait wait ok here it is the latest...

"No one was injured in the incident..." Gee imagine that, a Islamic nutcase, but this time nobody injured, well I guess hell is freezing over, pigs are flying all over the world.

"I believe (the shooting) is a very isolated and marginal act," chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, told CNN. He said he did not believe it would jeopardize the planning of the pope's trip, which was being carried out calmly."

Gee that might be very short sighted considering ISLAM IS OUT TO GET US ALL ahhhhhhhh.

Here's some other examples of Muslims peacefully protesting...

www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/residents/ankara_22jul98.html
Against Mcdonalds, go figure.
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/turk-m29.shtml
Against the war. hmmmm Muslims protesting war? Why would they be doing that don't they all love violence? Isn't Islam a cuture of violence?

Wow did you know Muslims have peaceful protests not just in Turky but world wide?
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/09/cartoon.protests/
www.flickr.com/photos/michellzappa/99156839/in/photostream/
www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1708080,00.html
www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=39353
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1708001,00.html
www.mail-archive.com/muslim@yahoogroups.com/msg00655.html
www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7289
edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/26/pope.turkey.reut/index.html
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395436575&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Gee I guess you can't hide the fact that there are indeed peaceful protests in the Islamic world, at least one, ok maybe two. Yeah maybe a lot more Howdy Doody

Gee I guess you can't hide the fact that there are indeed peaceful protests in the Islamic world, at least one, ok maybe two. Yeah maybe a lot more Howdy Doody

You still don't know what a strawman argument is.

A strawman argument is where you intentionally try to re-position someone else's argument as being something that is easier to defeat.

No one has ever claimed that Muslims don't have peaceful protests. I'm sure they have lots. How is that relevant to this discussion in the slightest?

No one has ever claimed that Muslims don't have peaceful protests. I'm sure they have lots.

I don't remember anyone (before you) ever saying such.

Also...can someone explain to me, why there are some conservatives who claim the media is biased...but use those very news agencies they bash, as sources....

eh? Seems....hypocritical.

I don't remember anyone (before you) ever saying such. Also...can someone explain to me, why there are some conservatives who claim the media is biased...but use those very news agencies they bash, as sources.... eh? Seems....hypocritical.

Regarding "peaceful protests".  The reason why people don't bring up peaceful Islamic protests is that it is assumed that not all Islamic get togethers result in murder.

Similarly, I don't need to mention that mass murderers don't actually murder every person they meet.

Secondly, explain how using the media as a source even while believing that it is biased overall is hypocritical? Or do you just like using that word?

Do you understand the concept of bias?  I have measuring instruments that are not 100% accurate. Yet, I still use them -- with the understanding of where and how they are imprecise in their measurments.  Observing that the instrument has a bias in its measurements while still using it doesn't make me a "hypocrite" does it?

I don't remember anyone (before you) ever saying such. Also...can someone explain to me, why there are some conservatives who claim the media is biased...but use those very news agencies they bash, as sources.... eh? Seems....hypocritical.

Because when we use sources that "we" don't see as biased, we're told our sources are "unreliable". So then we try to use their sources and we're told we're hypocritical. You can't have it both ways!

Do you understand the concept of bias? I have measuring instruments that are not 100% accurate. Yet, I still use them -- with the understanding of where and how they are imprecise in their measurments. Observing that the instrument has a bias in its measurements while still using it doesn't make me a "hypocrite" does it?

Better watch it Brad...according to SP you'd be a hypocrite.

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....

You know what I'm sick of?

Obtuse people like you, who simply brush most of us liberals off as mere flys. You really don't grasp the concept of liberalism, i dont mean "fanatic liberalism". I mean deep down, at it's base, at the core, liberalism. Rights, equal treatment, tolerance. Those are just three tenants of liberalism.

I don't see conservatism promoting the same? Conservatism, traditionalism...is what pushed the British empire, it is what kept people thinking that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, etc...

Liberalism/progressivism, brings change. Or at least it tries. It is what drove our founding fathers to go against the status quo. It is what was behind various movements, such as womens rights, black rights, etc...

There are those of you (either purposely, or not), who lump us together, and are willfully ignorant. Yes, that may be blunt, and rude, but you know what...from where i am standing, as moderate and neutral as i can be...it is glaring.

It's the same with "the other side." I mean, jesus freaking christ, the democratic underground is a prime example.

I get sick and tired of hearing of a "culture war," it's bullshit. There is no war, there are only a select few pricks, who perpetuate trouble. We can get along, we can have multiple varieties of faiths, etc... get along.

Culture war....*chuckles dryly*..more like a freaking farce.

Because when we use sources that "we" don't see as biased, we're told our sources are "unreliable". So then we try to use their sources and we're told we're hypocritical. You can't have it both ways!

Heh...still, makes no sense. Maybe if people would start pulling their heads out of their arses......perhaps?

Regarding "peaceful protests". The reason why people don't bring up peaceful Islamic protests is that it is assumed that not all Islamic get togethers result in murder.

Do you understand the concept of bias? I have measuring instruments that are not 100% accurate. Yet, I still use them -- with the understanding of where and how they are imprecise in their measurments. Observing that the instrument has a bias in its measurements while still using it doesn't make me a "hypocrite" does it?

Granted, but can you really get over it? Can you set aside your bias and, truly, look at it from a neutral, or another pov?

What I am trying to say, is that...your bias colors your views, which - if you continue to let it do so - you'll never understand anything from the left wing. You will never be able to tolerate them. You're pov is too biased, too slanted.

Me, yes, I'm biased. I'd be lying if i said otherwise, but i actually try, i actually attempt to see things from other sides, and not just...assume, or the like.

Secondly, explain how using the media as a source even while believing that it is biased overall is hypocritical? Or do you just like using that word?

You bash it, for being biased, etc... but you *still* use it. It's like, using something you prefer, even though you know it is useless.

Regarding "peaceful protests". The reason why people don't bring up peaceful Islamic protests is that it is assumed that not all Islamic get togethers result in murder.

What? That makes no sense…if you know that there is such thing as a peaceful Islamic protest, then why not say so? Why not show, that you are not intentionally being one sided?

And please, don't tell me it's cause you expect people to get that...and that anyone who doesn't is obtuse, cause not everyone is alike.

Do you understand the concept of bias? I have measuring instruments that are not 100% accurate. Yet, I still use them -- with the understanding of where and how they are imprecise in their measurments. Observing that the instrument has a bias in its measurements while still using it doesn't make me a "hypocrite" does it?

Granted, but can you really get over it? Can you set aside your bias and, truly, look at it from a neutral, or another pov?

What I am trying to say, is that...your bias colors your views, which - if you continue to let it do so - you'll never understand anything from the left wing. You will never be able to tolerate them. You're pov is too biased, too slanted.

Me, yes, I'm biased. I'd be lying if i said otherwise, but i actually try, i actually attempt to see things from other sides, and not just...assume, or the like.

Secondly, explain how using the media as a source even while believing that it is biased overall is hypocritical? Or do you just like using that word?

You bash it, for being biased, etc... but you *still* use it. It's like, using something you prefer, even though you know it is useless.

Better watch it Brad...according to SP you'd be a hypocrite.

Heh, It's not like I've ever carried much weight here.

Also, since you are (as you said) going to go out of your way to be an ass. I've decied to go ahead and bl you, 'cause dude, i won't deal with it. So, now you know.

Have a good evening, both of you.

~L

Granted, but can you really get over it? Can you set aside your bias and, truly, look at it from a neutral, or another pov?

Can YOU do the same? I highly doubt it.

Heh, It's not like I've ever carried much weight here. Also, since you are (as you said) going to go out of your way to be an ass. I've decied to go ahead and bl you, 'cause dude, i won't deal with it. So, now you know. Have a good evening, both of you.

You want to bl me? Fine go right ahead. Typical liberal thinking though. I try and stick up for you when everyone is stomping "Lucas" in the mud. And I get bl'd.....oh well, I'm quite sure I'll survive. Consider it returned, "in spades"!