Re: Moslems less willing to target the innocent than Americans

On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Chris Gehlker wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2007, at 11:26 PM, mmalc crawford wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>
>>>> Its just exposing the hypocrisy tat apparently we already all  
>>>> knew about...
>>> Obviously, some of us don't know about it.
>>
>> But you assured us earlier that we did...
>
> I think I was asserting that we all know there are Islamic  
> extremists. Apparently, some of us *still* don't get that they are  
> a small minority. I think that it is very hard for some people to  
> deal with the notion that those who wish them evil aren't organized  
> into easily identified national or religious groups.[1]

Here are the pew research numbers  for the broader question.    2005  
is the latest survey of this type I can find that actually documents  
it's data and accuracy.

<http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the- 
muslim-world>

Number of Muslims that believe that violence against civilian targets  
*IS* justified  "often/sometimes"  + "rarely"   (as opposed to "never"

The question:  "Violence against civilian targets IS justified"

Jordan:  88%
Lebanon:  58%
Pakistan:  44%
Indonesia:  38%
Turkey: 20%  << Turkey is usually billed as a  MODERATE nation and  
20% of the population believes that violence against civilians is  
sometimes justified.
Morocco:  18%

Look at the numbers for suicide bombings against civilians are  
justified.  (Of those that think violence against civilians is ever  
justified.)
Morocco:  81%  believe that they are justified..
Jordan:     61%
Lebanon: 62%
Pakistan: 50%
Indonesia: 50%
Turkey:47%

So.  88% of the people in Jordan  think it's ok to attack civilians  
and 61% of those folks think it's ok to use suicide bombing to do so..

That is sick and there is no way to put a pretty face on it.

Ballen's report doesn't list his sources, his questions, his data,  
sample size or anything,..

All we can tell is that it is one year newer than pew so there is  
something way wrong here, either pew got it wrong or Ballen's group,  
unless you believe that the Muslim attitude swung from 81% "for" to   
93% against
in the course of one year.. (using Jordan)

Part of the problem may simply be the perception of terms.

Some Muslims only count Muslims as civilians and anyone as members of  
Dar al-Harb (house of war) so, by definition they are not civilians  
and don't count.

IMHO, the Muslim world seems to split largely between those who  
tacitly support Islamic terror and those who do nothing about it.

What is the ratio of Muslims targeting civilians for terror attacks   
to Christians doing  the same?     500 to 1?    it's greater than that..

Regardless, it is a damn large number.

How many non Muslims think it is ok to target civilians vs how many  
non Muslims ARE targeting civilians?   There is the disparity.

>
> I was genuinely surprised at the high incidence of 'terrorist'  
> thinking among Americans. That was the news in the report for me.

Another part of the problem is that we don't know how the question  
was framed.

Example.   If you asked me "Is violence against civilians EVER  
justified" I'd say yes.   (qualified as "when they are supporting the  
war effort of their country in a material way)

I'd be thinking of the necessity of bombing the German ball bearing  
plants and munitions factories in WWII.    Manned by civilians, for  
sure, but very necessary targets to stop the production of tanks.
Does that count?  I don't know.    If the question was posed as "Is  
it ever justified to randomly target civilians"  I'd say no, not ever.

That leads back to my original point  which is what they 'say' does  
not jibe at all with what they 'do' and conversely
what the Americans may 'think' does not jibe with what they do  
either. (that is, they are NOT blowing up tube stations, trains,  
school buses,  and civilians at markets...)

>
> I also think that many people in Islamic countries may hate  
> Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, for reasons  
> that either have nothing to do with religion or are merely  
> rationalized as religious. I spent some time the weekend before  
> last talking to a bigot who hates Hispanics[2]. He is very  
> disturbed by seeing Spanish billboards, hearing Spanish on the  
> street and even smelling Mexican cooking. If this man can be driven  
> to such distraction by such moderate changes in his society in  
> response to Hispanic immigration, think of what people in  
> traditional Arabic cultures must feel as their cultures are  
> literally submerged in Western/Global society.

I understand that they must feel under attack by Western culture.   I  
literally can't imagine how as pre-enlightenment culture must feel  
when confronted with a largely secular and democratic culture, and  
one that doesn't put up with authoritarian religious leadership much  
at all.    They haven't kept up with the rest of the world, and every  
time they encounter something Western, it is brought home just how  
backward their culture has become.

Where the rub is is that this pre-enlightenment culture believes that  
everyone else must convert, submit or die..

  Sooner or later, we are going to have to convince them that 'none  
of the above' is another possible answer and that their continued  
survival will depend on their willingness
to accept the fact that we are not going to embrace Islam and Sharia  
law.    Ever.

In that sense, I think that a major clash is inevitable.

If we made a real move to energy independence  then we could starve  
them of money and a lot of this problem would go away without much  
bloodshed.
I'm not holding my breath though.

=c=

_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters@...
http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net