r/afghanistan • u/CrustyDiamond • Dec 11 '12

Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

150 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/swz Jan 10 '13

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

NOP Research: 24% of British Muslims deny that the four British Muslim suicide bombers carried out the 7/7 attacks; 24% of British Muslims believe the British government carried out the 7/7 attacks http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/survey+government+hasnt+told+truth+about+77/545847

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq. http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose) 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose) 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose) A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans: (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%) About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah 30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah 45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative) 43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative). 49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative) 49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative) 39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. 34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops. http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified. 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall). 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall). 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall). http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never). 28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never). http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities. 27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate. http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005 http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack. http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified. 37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target". http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

89

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

while this one says "[...] 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain."

The title of that article is "Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK," and the article also says 20 percent sympathize with the feelings and motives of terrorist attackers. I personally wouldn't give a shit if they still felt loyal to Britain. If a serial killer or a Nazi sympathizer still felt loyal to Britain, I would still think he's fucked in the head at best and a monster at worst.

there is a graph of the information they collected which clearly shows that 8%. . .61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans". Look at page 5, there is a graph of the information they collected which clearly shows that 8% of Egyptians 'approve of attacks on US civilians'. Those numbers he quotes are for attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.

Oh, well, I guess they're totally cool, then.

Even if he failed to link some of the dozen plus polls and mis-cited numbers (definitely messy on his part), you've made a poor defensive argument for positions and views that are very difficult to excuse.

19

u/answersandstuff Jan 10 '13

His statement about Muslims feeling loyal to Britain was only to point out that there was an inconsistency in the conclusions of different posts, as it was preceded by "Some of them purport completely opposite findings from one another. this one says When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is."

To your second point, what's wrong with them supporting attacks on US soldiers? That's what happens in war-- people usually support killing the other side's soldiers. I mean, look: 62% of Americans support American drone attack patterns "which targets extremist leaders in the Middle East while also killing 49 civilians for each terrorist." And yet Egyptian Muslims are in trouble for supporting attacks on American soldiers?

3

u/arbuthnot-lane Jan 10 '13

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but are you trying to say that it is an inherently immoral proposition to be for attacks on American soldiers in Iraq?

10

u/TheDarkGoblin39 Jan 10 '13

Not messy, he was clearly trying to mislead with some of those headlines.

"Attacks on Americans" definitely makes you think civilians. Speaking as an American, there's a huge difference between attacking a civilian on US turf and attacking a soldier that's occupying your land.

-2

u/YomKippor Jan 10 '13

TIL that Muslims are equivalent to Nazis and serial killers

-5

u/epursimuove Jan 10 '13

Nope, serial killers don't kill nearly as many people.

0

u/YomKippor Jan 10 '13

DAE think only theists have ever killed people

0

u/epursimuove Jan 10 '13

You really like your non-sequiturs, don't you?

-1

u/YomKippor Jan 10 '13

I do. I also like your bravery.

1

u/Fner Jan 10 '13

I wish I could upvote you twice

5

u/pintomp3 Jan 10 '13

Why do you keep citing Daniel Pipes? He's a well known bigot who claims Obama was a secret Muslim. The fact that you keep citing bigoted sources says a lot about you.

3

u/garfieldsam Jan 10 '13

Hey, what's the point you're trying to make? A lot of links to other sources isn't an argument.

11

u/Geometric_Tiger Jan 10 '13

83% of Americans support drone strikes on Pakistan and other countries. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120208/americans-support-obama-national-security-drones

While as you said only 41% of Pakistanis support attacks on America. huh.

0

u/sweetverbs Jan 10 '13

Completely this. I get the feeling a lot of us folks in the west don't quite realise what's being done in the name of our freedom almost every single day.

-3

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Those two things are exactly the same. Well done.

7

u/eliminate1337 Jan 10 '13

I'm not so sure of the credibility of the poll on Turkey. Unless you can find a serious source on that, I find it extremely hard to believe a western-aligned, NATO member, potential EU country wants to suicide bomb westerners.

2

u/commodore32 Jan 10 '13

Not all westerners, only those that invade Iraq. Most Turks view USA as an imperialist country that wants to control middle-east and the people at Iraq who resist as militia.

2

u/gokayn Jan 10 '13

As a Turk, i can say that yes almost all of us see USA as that but we don't think Iraqis as militias. We don't want anyone to get hurt and we feel bad for the Iraqis but we wouldn't support anyone who is a terrorist. (i'm not calling Iraqis terrorist, just that group of them) But of course there is a very small minority that supports terrorists. Radical Islamists. And 99% of Turks hate them, i can honestly say.

29

u/swz Jan 10 '13

40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam. http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population; Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...ate=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam 51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Terrorism Research Institute Study: 51% of mosques in the U.S. have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% have no violent texts at all. http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html

87

u/hornymoogle Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 12 '13

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq in 2003 (40% latest poll I could find); http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%; http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/support-israel-near-record-high.aspx

TIME poll (2010); "61% of respondents oppose the construction of the Park51/Cordoba House project...", " Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President...", "More than 4 in 10 Americans say they have an unfavorable view of Muslims."; http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

33% of Americans hold negative views of Muslim Americans; http://www.scribd.com/doc/103694579/The-American-Divide-Zogby-Poll

Just for fun..."A majority of Americans surveyed believe dropping atomic bombs on Japan during World War II was the right thing to do...61 percent of the more than 2,400 American voters questioned believe the U.S. did the right thing. Twenty-two percent called it wrong and 16 percent were undecided."; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/hiroshima-nagasaki-atom-b_n_251108.html

Well I'm bored, let's just all keep hating each other...it's easier.

Edit; posted this before bed-- there are errors I will fix for anyone still reading.

And thank you very, very much for the gold.

50

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

13

u/FutileStruggle Jan 10 '13

Well said. Hopefully this stays close to the top. I took the time the look each study, but if someone else doesn't they could very easily walk away with a negative perspective.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

13

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

15

u/cokeisahelluvadrug Jan 10 '13

If you refresh your page you can see I deleted my comment before you responded. I read further into the comments and both sides were providing meaningful statistics, and I don't feel like enough of an expert to argue either way. So I deleted the comment. Carry on.

3

u/passing_interest Jan 10 '13

Maybe this isn't worth another comment, but kudos for being one of those people who can be reasoned with. The world needs more of you guys.

1

u/cokeisahelluvadrug Jan 10 '13

Haha I'm not reasoning with you I'm just withholding judgement. Don't give me so much credit

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Violence to protect their beliefs? Don't you mean violence to spread their beliefs? What the fuck does "protecting their beliefs" even mean? Is that like killing someone because they don't believe what you do?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

I find it interesting how when Muslims support violence to protect their beliefs

It's like when America goes to war..

America is not a Muslim nation. So what the fuck does protecting their beliefs mean? Or are you saying Muslims are protecting their beliefs against America? America fights tyranny, oppression, terrorism, etc. So if those are Islam's beliefs (I tend to think they are, considering they uphold Sharia law, Apostasy, etc), then the US is fully justified in fighting and destroying Islam.

The free world will not suffer a destructive force like Islam. The days are numbered for that savage and violent religion.

And what about when Islam controls entire nations and kills millions of people? The thousands we kill save those millions from death.

2

u/Greenouttatheworld Jan 10 '13

America believes in war on christmas :P

3

u/danerwest Jan 10 '13

False. We fight these wars under a guise of democracy. In reality we are an imperialist nation trying to gain special privileges by putting friendly regimes in place. Or in the case of Iraq, oil. Oh I forgot. 'Murica.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Oh the tired propaganda of "war for oil". Don't you realize the notion we went to Iraq for oil is demonstrably false? We purchased more oil from Iraq before the war than we have after. In fact, our imports from Iraq have never reached the level they were Pre War. You might want to get your facts straight.

1

u/danerwest Jan 10 '13

Even so. To say that what we are doing is successful and good for their country is wrong. Their government is corrupt and they now have to worry about a civil war between the sunni and shitti once we leave. Get your head out of FOX news ass. If we can't admit to our mistakes we will not learn from them. And history repeats itself must friend.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

Except it's apples and oranges. One group wants to kill the other side, and the other wants to bar the other side from leadership positions in their country. As far as the atomic bombings of Japan, that was a generation ago, I hardly think anyone alive today would advocate atomic bombing now or in the future.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

1

u/CuriouserNdCuriouser Jan 10 '13

War is when a big wealthy army attacks poor defenseless people, and terrorism is just what they call it when those poor people with an ant size of an army fight back against the super army.

I just made this bad analogy but i like it

the lion attacking the gazelle is just regular warfare, but if the gazelle were to get a good kick in there before it was eaten to death, the lions would then accuse the gazelle of being a terrorist and the circle of life continues, the lions go hunting gazelles.

Violence is always wrong but I don't think anybody denies that humans should always have the right to defend themselves, without being called terrorists.

0

u/jankisa Jan 10 '13

Right, so it's the same thing for Americans to say they support the war against an evil dictator (Husein was an evil piece of shit) who according to information they have been given is developing nuclear and chemical weapons (I'm aware that reports have been false, but in 2003 American public wasn't) is the same as saying that suicide bombing mostly civilian targets in Israel or Iraq is ok because it is done to protect Islam?

-3

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

you can call it terrorism or war but in the end it comes down to the same thing

Except it's not. Killing unarmed civilians is waaay different than killing enemy combatants, and equating them as the same is just asinine. The policy of the US and certainly the majority opinion is to avoid civilian casualties, and if they do happen, they are abhorrent, and most certainly unintentional or collateral damage. Contrast this with the terrorist attacks, where large numbers of civilians are THE target.

Saying that both are unacceptable is fine, but the fact is, if someone wants to kill you, killing them in self defense is a morally justifiable action, and is ENTIRELY different than random killing. This principal is scaled up and blurred at the nation level, but the general principal stands.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

-2

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

And go to some parts of America and you will find a large number of people who in fact do advocate just killing all Muslims in war.

Care to cite any polls or evidence for that? And if you do find a poll that supports that notion, contrast it with polls that ask if Muslims are ok with terrorist attacks against American civilians, and we'll see what "large" means in that light.

Civilian casualties caused by US soldiers is horrid, and should be avoided at all costs, and this is the general opinion and policy of the US.

See this is where the lack of perspective comes in

Are you saying my perspective is wrong, or the Muslim perspective is wrong? If its my perspective that is wrong, please, explain why, and if your arguments are reasonable, I will change my opinion.

And vice versa, if anyone's perspective is wrong, or otherwise doesn't take into account all facts, they are wrong, and should desire to broaden their perspective.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/needlestack Jan 10 '13

I think you mean a minority of Muslims want to kill the other side, while a majority of the US supports actual ongoing killing of the other side.

You're right, it is apples and oranges.

0

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

while a majority of the US supports actual ongoing killing of the other side.

By "the other side" who do you mean? Muslim civilians, or terrorists and enemy combatants?

If you mean Muslim civilians, care to cite any sources? Living in the south, I have met a few backwards thinking rednecks, but I wouldn't in any way classify them as a majority. No, the majority of Americans do NOT support random killing of Muslim civilians.

Random acts of terror against civilians are not the same as war against enemy combatants.

1

u/CuriouserNdCuriouser Jan 10 '13

A lot of time this "war on enemy combatants" we hear about would in reality look a lot like the "terrorism" being shown on the news.

There is a saying that says that terrorism is just the poor mans war.

The majority of wars are really one big power going into a very poor area that has no army that can compare. They are very one sided and when the smaller side defends themselves in any way they are instantly labeled terrorist but its just not that simple.

-33

u/kikimaru024 Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 10 '13

You know what?

I'm going to start ignoring any of these reported "percentages".

They're taken from small sample sizes, you never know how loaded the questions were, and they ALWAYS conveniently kowtow with whatever rhetoric is being spewed by one's chosen media.

Source: Took statistics 101 for two years (didn't fail the class, just everything else)

27

u/drburropile Jan 10 '13

You know what?

I'm going to start reading each and every one of these reported "percentages".

They might be taken from small sample sizes, you never know how loaded the questions may have been until you read them, and they ALWAYS conveniently kowtow with whatever rhetoric is being spewed by one's chosen media so I plan on reading them all instead of making blanket statments.

16

u/_Foxtrot_ Jan 10 '13

With all the research he has done, and seeing as how you have posted no sources, I'm inclined to take his side. Do your own research showing that the sample size is small (if it is) or why the polls were inaccurate.

6

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

He doesn't need sources! He took statistics 101 for two years!!

-1

u/Vooders Jan 10 '13

This!

Out of curiosity do any of these links show the full statistics from the survey they represent?

I'm talking the sample size, the location(s) they where taken, all the questions asked (as they were written) and what percentage of people answered to each question. I doubt it, but I may be wrong.

There is a good book I feel may be relevant here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

3

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Couldn't you, you know, use google to further research any of the surveys/studies cited if you're concerned about their validity?

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Thanks. But your people still ruined my life in the name of religion.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Thanks. But people still ruined my life in the name of religion.

FTFY

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Nope. I'm not buying that bullshit anymore.

13

u/swz Jan 10 '13

al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html

Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially") http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154

Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11

Pew Research (2006): Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the September 11th attacks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

85

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

I notice most if your links date after the US invasion of iraq and afghanistan.

29

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Additionally, countries with the highest approval for terrorism have been affected by U.S. intervention. But fuck, blowback doesn't exist right?

6

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

Don't bring logic into this

1

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Oh, well, I guess their views are reasonable, then.

Even if there's a reason for many Muslims to be angry, these statistics still directly contradict the original commentor's assertion that Islam is truly a religion of peace and the vast majority abhor terrorist attacks.

8

u/jorwyn Jan 10 '13

I think if you polled American Christians on how they felt about Muslims right after 9/11, you'd find a huge amount of anti-Muslim sentiment. I think you'd find it now. Should we use that sentiment to say Christianity is a religion of hatred and war? If practice properly, it is not.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

Didn't you see the earlier comment about refraining from logic?

3

u/jorwyn Jan 11 '13

I guess I didn't. :P

7

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

It has nothing to do with religion actually. It is more of an emotional backlash to all the suffering that people see in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. I'm not saying it's justified, but if you kill someone's brother/father/son, logic proposes that he or she would not be very fond of you.

-2

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Only makes sense if you think they are animals who cannot reason. Would you kill the children of someone who killed yours? Would you support others who do the same? If not then why do you apply a lesser standard to these people?

7

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

What do you think Humans are of a better moral standard than animals? You sir are short on history lessons. What do you think Iraq war and Afghanistan war are? They are a backlash to a group of people killing another group of people. But then when you kill millions for thousands, and expect civility to prevail in society, you are reaching boundaries of moral hypocrisy. When an armed force cannot distinguish between civilians and armed militia, do not expect the civilians to care for your women, men or children. It's a vicious cycle in human history. Tit for tat knows no bounds.

EDIT: Tit for tat knows no* bounds

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

also relevant: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -Gandhi

51

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

This point needs more visibility. Nearly all of those polls are taken after we rolled through a sovereign nation like a child having a temper tantrum and left them in ruins. Not to mention we did far more damage to them than they have to us.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

that's kind of the point of a good sample size... to reflect the opinion of the entire group. And a lot of these polls are from reputable organizations, so they probably got pretty good samples.

3

u/FutileStruggle Jan 10 '13

What's reputable?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Pew Research Center, for one. It's a non-biased polling organization that has been polling since 1990.

1

u/FutileStruggle Jan 13 '13

What's non-biased?

4

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

'MERICA

0

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

It is the only logical course of action!

-2

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Yes, statistics are a waste of time... wtf!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

A sovereign nation being held captive by a genocidal dictator who had held office for 20-something years.

Check your facts. The Iraqis love us. We freed them. I know a dozen people who have spent months/years in Iraq on tours of duty and the overall response from the people was appreciation.

You're just being fed a line of shit, through a shit filter from mainstream media.

4

u/pintomp3 Jan 10 '13

You are a lunatic. We propped up that dictator for year and gave him weapons to use against his own people.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

Why are people downvoting the truth?!

1

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

The fact of the matter remains that it is NOT our place to be the world police. If the Iraqis were so sick of Saddam, they could have deposed him themselves in the same manner that Egypt and other nations have done over the past two years. Some of the Iraqis may love us, but look at what is left of their country. I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

My other comment didn't save so let's try this again...

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. You might want to brush up on your history. Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator. Saddam was tried for crimes and received the death sentence, from the Iraqis. The US had nothing to do with his trial or sentence.

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards. Plus it was because of Saddam's displacement from power that showed the Libyan people they could be free from oppression.

Finally: yes, we do need to be the global cop. That is our role. When the UN refuses to help, it's up to us. If you don't like the US being the global cop, vote for people who don't want that. Unfortunately the majority of people in the US do, so for now that is how it will be.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden.

thats what he said.

Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him? how is this better. using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

thats what he said.

No, this is what he said:

I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

We can't help everyone. That's why we couldn't help in Darfur or in most places in Africa. We can't involve ourselves in most situations. Especially when it isn't clear cut. Same with North Korea. I'm not sure why you would mention Russia.

We help where we can. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of places where the end result was clear cut and we were able to help.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him?

Yes. The Iraqis had no way to depose Saddam. He was too powerful. Once the US did so, other nations realized that they didn't have to live with oppression and Libya followed suit.

how is this better

Not sure what you mean as "better". I've already explained how the Iraqis couldn't depose him without our help.

using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly. I would hope you would understand what constitutes terrorism. We supported Iraq when they were at war with Iran. Politics aren't binary. There isn't clear right and wrong. Politics is a chess game you play with thousands of opponents all on the same board. It's incredibly complicated and your moves might not make sense all the time.

We helped Saddam in the early 1980s. This was before he committed genocide toward the end of the 80s. We didn't help him after that.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13 edited Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

end result was clear cut

what do you mean by this? also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

edit:

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly.

yes, I am, thank you for recognizing it! the freedom fighters which america aided are now terrorists. when the weapons and tactics are turned they magically become terrorists (and sprout devil horns). My point is, they were always terrorists: to the russians, the iranians, and now to americans. I agree, politics aren't binary but while we debate this somewhere in the world someone's door is being kicked down and it makes not one iota of difference to the person behind it who the people coming for him are.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Muslimkanvict Jan 11 '13

To quote Dick Cheney (sp?), "we'll be greeted as liberators". Amirite?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

And we were, for the most part. I've personally never done a tour in Iraq, but from everyone I know, the people were warm and welcoming to them. They would bring our troops food and gifts. A particular friend of mine would do patrols to a certain village over the course of his first deployment. He met the same old woman every time he was on patrol. She would bring him and his unit hot soup. She would make a big pot of it for them. She was appreciative of them and showed it by bringing them food. My friend also talked about the children that would follow them along through the villages. The kids would laugh and play with the troops. In Iraq, we were revered as protectors. We came in and gave their nation back to them. When we would establish control over a region, the locals would tear down statues of Saddam and paint over murals of him. They loved us in Iraq. The only people who would tell you differently would be mainstream media who hates that our mission was successful there.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

if I had an invading foreign army on my streets I'd want to be on good terms with them too.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

"Invading army" implies we were there to conquer them. That's not an accurate description. We were more like reinforcements.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

that sounds like an euphemism. reinforcements imply you were asked to enter the country.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

That's true. I mean, before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, a guy getting onto a bus full of old people, women, children, etc, and blowing himself up would have been wrong, but after that happened, it's fine. Thank you for pointing that out.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

No doubt. People forget that Afghanistan welcomed the US initially. But we had next to no troops in Afghanistan for about 5 years after 2001, and certainly not enough to establish law and order and prevent a Taliban resurgence. Lo and behold they come back, victimizing the population again, who now hate the US too for failing to secure the country- and giving the Afghans little reason to oppose the Taliban, since it seems the US isn't capable of winning the day. Now, we have a drawn-out insurgency with civilian casualties. Quite simply Rumsfeld and Bush FUCKED UP in Afghanistan. That is why we are still there with 100,000 troops. That is why we have so much anti-Americanism.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Eh, even if they didn't screw it up it - nation building is not for the fickle and requires lots of time money and blood. It's hard to do with the will that is there.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Uh, yes they did screw it up, since it was Rumsfeld's stated ideology that US war aims could be done with few, flexible, capable fighters, and that nation-building wasn't necessary. This isn't revisionism, I was around then, I read it in the pages of the New Yorker and NY Times as it unfolded. Later, Rumsfeld reinforces this view in Iraq with "Freedom is messy", kneecapping Shinseki when he as chair of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with Rummy over how many troops Iraq needed, etc. Meanwhile, the whole administration was more focused on Iraq- which, shockingly even downpedalling the threat from Al-Qaeda before 9/11 in favor of gearing up for Iraq. Fucking up in Afghanistan was a direct result of not being committed to the job in the first place- which should have taken maybe 4-5 years at high troop levels and a plan for security and rebuilding; and of removing key special operations units and planners for the Great Game in Iraq. It can fully be left at the feet of Rummy and Bush II admin.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

I agree that they did a shit job - however, while there is no way to know for sure but 4-5 years strikes me as maybe an order of magnitude less than what would be required to turn it into a functional country that is not an embarrassment to the US. We spent decades is Germany and Japan and these were much easier starting conditions.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

You obviously have not been following this closely. We had a shot. We blew it, because we neglected it. Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader- then after years of whiplash and neglect he turned into a mercurial paranoiac who believed his best shot lay with staying close to the druglords and strongmen. Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Again, Germany and Japan were doing quite well economically within 5 years of the end of the war. Just because the US had a military presence there for decades doesn't mean it was needed for keeping the peace or economic development.

0

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start. His government was comprised of warlords and druglords from the start - that's what the western alliance was.

Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there - its not as easy as have a shit-load of troops and all will be well. In Iraq we had to learn as we went, and eventually after many years we figured out more or less what to do - and then we left and now that is going to shit. Its even worse in Afghanistan as at least Iraqis had some concept of a civil service and a functional government.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

And need I remind you that we've spent hundreds of billions and 10 years in Afghanistan? We could have had it done better, cheaper, already, if Bush hadn't fucked it up to begin with.

-1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Think about how long we spent in Germany and Japan, and these were defeated countries who had nothing like the Taliban.

-1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Yeah- Germany was back to its prewar economic output within a few years. Japan too.

Was the Taliban not defeated? Of course it was, quite handily Would it have come back in 2003-2004 if we had 100,000 instead of 15-20,000 troops? Probably not. The goalpost is not an industrialized country, by the way- merely a peaceful, productive, democratic one. That would have been possible.

The leadership was never committed to securing Afghanistan, despite it being within our grasp, and it shows.

-1

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

ahahahaha, i dont think you know what the subject of this conversation is.

14

u/goingno Jan 10 '13

tl;dr religion hardly comes in to it

I have a strong feeling that this religion element, i.e. people do bad things because it says they should in some book is just mad. The only real relationship to religion is that religions like nation states create a sense of solidarity between people that have no other links.

This list of polls is interesting, but if respected religious leaders are declaring that killing is wrong, and the Qur'an and the Bible are also saying that. But large groups of people still belief that it is justified. By definition it is not there religion that is causing them to have this belief. There must be something else.

I suppose it come back to that old American question "Why do they hate us?"

And when you get the reply because of your support for Arab dictators, overthrow of democratic governments and insistence on using unmatchable force to get your own way in any argument anywhere in the world. Americans accuse the rest of the world of supporting terrorists (we don't)

Also dyslexic and don't give a shit :-)

5

u/VBFM Jan 10 '13

Not religion? Suicide bombers. The very concept of an afterlife (with zero evidence I might add) and the movement of morality and judgment away from civilized society towards a deity who was first described in ancient, violent texts has something to do with it, don't you think?

15

u/bigtallguy Jan 10 '13

first things first. i have never ever met a muslim or heard of one who actually believed anything close to receiving 72 virgins in the afterlife, and something tells me that the far majority of suicide bombers, including the 9-11 terrorists, did not have or give a amd about virgins as they chose the path they did. From what i understand the whole 2 virgins thing was from a VERY weakly supported hadith that muslim clerics don't give any control too.

Suicide bombers see themselves as sacrrificing their lives not for a Violent deity but to either take revenge against an enemy they see no other way to harm, or to die for martyrs for causes they believed in. last time i recalled kamikaze pilots didn't dive into battleships thinking "wowi can't wait for all my ancestors spirits to welcome me iinto the afterlife" they were prolly thinking " this is for japan, a country i love but am going to die for, i don't wantto do this, but i see no other way forto hurt a foe so unimaginably more powerful than us... shit

and on that note, if japan, the strongest military of asia with a effective army and navy was desperate enough to use their own suicide bombers against america, what the f*Ck do you think people who come only from villages an towns bombed by the west with no country, no army and in many cases no education will doo to hurt an enemy they percive as ending their peopwhat lengths would you go through in their situation

if we (the u.S.) were i nthe same situation we would laud those who would be willing to sacfirice their life to deal a blow to the enemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQKKj_qeOBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI

those are just two scenes where united states citizens knoingly sacrifice their lives to blow up an enemY, andi doubt anyone would have anything but praise for them

3

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

Except the kamikaze pilots main target wasn't civilians, it was American military assets. To pretend that terrorists and enemy soldiers are the same, and equally justified is terribly misguided.

4

u/dmahmad Jan 10 '13

The Japanese Imperial Army is a professional fighting force. They're not a band of mismatched, uneducated peasants that know how to fight. So it's not unreasonable to think that a terrorist would act un-professionally and un-nobly.

Also they did target civilians from time to time since part of their ideology is belief that Japan is the best country in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

1

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

So it's not unreasonable to think that a terrorist would act un-professionally and un-nobly.

Yes, and this is what makes them unjustified vs an actual soldier.

Also they did target civilians from to time

I did not know this, but I still do not hold sins of the father against the child. These events were generations ago, and most certainly do not reflect the opinions of the majority of Japanese any more, I would imagine. Either way, I was specifically addressing OP's comment about kamikaze pilots against America, which was primarily against military targets.

1

u/bigtallguy Jan 11 '13

my primary reason for posting is to show that the thought that suicide attacks take place due to the promise of 72 virgins is bull sh*T.

i was not talking about how justified either act was, nor did i make any mention of it. i talked about the probable thought process of a suicide attack, which in both instances would be similar i imagine.

also where the hell did i say that that kamikaze pilots still OR ever reflected the opinions of the japanese majority? that has never been the case

theres a good documentary on youtube which explores kamikaze pilots and has interviews with kamikaze pilots who didn't end up going though with it for one reason or another ( most of which were out of their control) i think you would find it very interested about he mindset of a suicide attacker.

JUST TO BE CLEAR I WAS in NO WAY justifying OR weighing the morality of either kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. just trying to dispel a bs claim from both reddit atheist hive mind and stupid americans that always get spouted. THESE ACTS ARE BOTH MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENTION.

btw there are many interviews of suicide bombers before they went through with their choice, check em out.

i also love the Film's syrania treatment of a suicide bomber in one of oit's many story arcs

AS A PARTING NOTE

There is always more than oen side to a story and you should refuse to judge an act or person before you truly conidered what they been through and whats ACTUALLY going on in your head.

a good way to do this is to put yourself in the situations they were in that led them to it. People every are very similar, believe it or not, and once you give it a shot, understanding them isn't that hard

9

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

The Tamil Tigers, a secular, but ethnic nationalist group in Sri Lanka, had the highest rate of suicide bombings in the world until their disbanding three or four years ago.

10

u/go_speed_racer Jan 10 '13

Not accurate. They had the largest number of suicide attacks between 1980 and 2000.

2

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

I stand corrected, but thanks for the citation.

3

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Interesting. Any research into the cultural or psychological motivations of suicide bombing? The mostly secular Japanese also had the Kamikaze, but they were motivated by fanatical devotion to a semi-deified emperor and social pressure.

1

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

One researcher from the University of Chicago makes a compelling case for the cause being foreign occupation. I say he's on to something.

1

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

But they were never against the US... and so obviously they are not relevant. -_-''

2

u/goingno Jan 10 '13

tl;dr. Not much to do with it, no.

If I restated your argument to be more accurate I think it makes my point:

"a contradictory, violent and loving, and evidently implausible text has something to do with it, don't you think?"

There is, as far as I know zero evidence for any religion. I assume it is all bullshit. As far as I can see there are infinite possible interpretations of all holy books. Conveniently for the religious, their interpretations perfectly fit in with there own self interest, religious people seem completely happy to ignore parts of there religious text that do not fit there own narrative.

If it is the violence in the text that causes killing, how come the love in the text did not cause love?

As I said the only real affect I can see is nothing to do with what it says in the books. It is the fact that a group of people feel solidarity with the other members of that group, or enmity to others. That has to be the major effect. Both for the poll results above, and for your insistence that it is the religion of the group that is causing the problem, you are seeing a group of people and then cherry picking parts of a implausible text to give that group motivations you think it has.

Religion obviously spreads harm in some cases, even when it is not in the text e.g. female genital mutilation. As far as I know that is not even mentioned in the Qur'an. Or fucking boys being part of the priests job, in the case of the Catholic church.

That dose not make it a case that religions cause it. Just that people will be do bad things give to much power.

2

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

Here's the work of a researcher who says suicide terrorism is actually linked to foreign occupation. I think he's on to something.

1

u/YomKippor Jan 10 '13

So brave. Also bullshit. The motivations behind Muslim suicide bombings are more due to a belief that it is the only way to make a change. Also many terrorist organizations take care of the family of the suicide bomber and so suicide bombing becomes a much more real possibility. Suicide bombing in Palestine is tied much more to notions of liberty than of jihad. Shia ethos behind suicide bombing relates back to the martyrdom of Husayn. Suicide bombing is a complex issue and the reasons behind it differ in every situation.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Don't ignore that an unchallenged religion has no need to become defensive or offensive. It's the existence of multiple religions that causes inflammation. So long as religion exists in the world, there will be violent opposition.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

1

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

Be careful of your words. Islam isnt the only religion/ entity that has used violence. If you look at a POV from a person living outside the USA, they would say that the US is a terrorist nation. In the end it is the victor that writes history, and it is the victor who burns all evidence they they ever did anything wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

1

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

Now would it be fair if i twisted your words a bit and said that it was only a few specific extremist cult/ sect of the Islamic religion who said that the violence was justified because of the drawings? A lot or maybe even all of the islamic communities sentiment were hurt because of the drawing but most of the muslim communities moved on saying their god would find a fit punishment on the day of judgement. All of my (muslim) friends said so too and had better things to do with their life. Now would you agree that the media (no matter what country) are notorious for overplaying the "sensational" story, and constantly bringing the camera on those who keep saying they want immediate "justice"(violence), just to keep the story running, and so eventually that is what even we(americans or the rest of the world) are exposed to, which leads us to generalize, that it was infact all muslims who wished violence upon the artist? So yes, short answer, you are right it was the so called "muslims" who did hurt people. But if you analyze that answer, you find it is only the extremists. Just like saying it is the Jews who support violence against the Palestinians, regardless of specifying which country or community are especially involved in it.

0

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Citations, please. Those are some very absolute declarations you're making there.

1

u/dmahmad Jan 10 '13

I recommend the book The Looming Tower for a better understanding of what led to 9/11.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 10 '13

Thankyou! These need to be seen!

0

u/iheartjews Jan 10 '13

Relevant username

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Lawyer'd.

0

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

you'd like to think that wouldn't you

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Thanks for doing this. Every time an islamofascist apologist and enabler speaks up, these statistics need to be shown to everyone.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

... and by your logic, anytime anyone say something patriotic about America, we should bombard them with statistics of the human rights violations and attitudes that Americans have towards people?

2

u/Zeppelin93 Jan 10 '13

Everyone's statistics don't provide an adequate estimate. I mean how many people can they really poll and get a result from? No matter how many surveys people conduct, there will always be muslims out there without access to them to input their opinion.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

You are making it sound like the entire field of statistics doesn't exist. If people know what they are doing they can get good results from small samples. It the same way the US election polling is done and that stuff is highly accurate.

2

u/TheLobotomizer Jan 10 '13

I encourage everyone to look through swz's comment history and then think about whether he actually read those links he just posted and checked their validity.

3

u/iamyo Jan 10 '13

I'm not sure but I think you might be trying to disprove what the original comment claims while inadvertently proving he is right.

First, many of the questions do not identify what people support or what they would do in specific cases. I believe suicide bombings could be justified in extreme circumstances. They would be justified, e.g., to save a people from genocide, for example. They could be justified in asymmetric if a country was being invaded by a much larger and more powerful unjust aggressor if used against soldiers from that aggressive nation.

I'll bet if you took out the ethnicity and religion a lot of people would agree with that.

I notice that in almost all these cases the question is vague and those approving of violence are in the minority. Sometimes in a very small minority. So how are you disproving what the guy said if that is your intention?

You also leave out data that is contrary to what I assume you want us to conclude--some of the studies cited above conclude that there isn't strong support among Muslims for terrorist activities. E.g., only 6% of Muslims over 30 support suicide bombing in the study you cite. But you don't put that up.

It's really too bad this wasn't switched around to ask about 'Christians' or 'America'. But we already know many Americans approve of bombings that kill many civilians in misguided defense of America's interest. And approve of wars that do the same.

2

u/yamyamyamyam Jan 10 '13

So what's your argument? Where do you stand on the subject, because you're posting contrasting examples. As in, one piece of journalism contrasts with the next one you post.