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....

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.

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).

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 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?

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

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"

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.