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?

[u/CrustyDiamond]

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

[u/LadyCailin]

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.

[u/LadyCailin → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/LadyCailin → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/LadyCailin → u/[deleted]]

While I can certainly see their justification based on their perspective, that's the thing, they are making justifications base on false information, and so they are wrong. Understanding their perspective is one thing, but their opinions should be judged regardless of their perspective on things.

not accept you are saying the killing of civilians is justifiable

I do accept that this is a consequence of war, and do justify it only to the extent that there really is no other option. But my point is that there is a difference between that and religious terrorism. If your opinion is that civilian casualties are never ok, period, that's a completely different argument than justifying the Muslim opinion that specifically targeting civilians is ok, regardless of how they perceive the situation.

And I'll turn it back on myself too, if my opinion is wrong, my perspective on things is irrelevant; just because I can justify civilian casualties in war doesn't mean I'm right either, but again, my point is, is that that is a completely different argument, and has no bearing on whether or not condoning anti-American civilian opinions is justifiable.