Just How Many Muslims Support Terrosism

[russ_watters]

A few weeks ago, I and a few others were called "racist" for expressing our perception that a disturbingly significant fraction of Muslims support terrorism and the related perception that very little open criticism of terrorism or terrorist groups goes on in Muslim countries. I freely acknowledge that that's a perception/stereotype - brought on, in large part, by reading the newspaper and debating people in forums such as this who either support or refuse to unequivocably condemn terrorism. Does that make it racism? Only if the perception is unwarranted and fuels generalized hate.

Well, as it turns out, this is a perception that can relatively easily be measured against reality (the "hate" part can easily be answered with the mirror in the last paragraph of my post). All you have to do is ask Muslims if they support terrorism. Ask them if they have confidence that Osama Bin Laden is acting in the best interests of the Islamic world. And here's what Muslims have to say on the issue: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Percentage who often/sometimes support suicide bombings against civilians:
Jordan 57
Lebanon 39
Pakistan 25
Indonesia 15
Turkey 14
Morocco 13

Percentage who think Bin Laden is "doing the right thing regarding world affairs"
Jordan 60
Pakistan 51
Indonesia 35
Morocco 26
Turkey 7
Lebanon 2

Also of note is the discrepancy between Muslim's attitudes toward non-Muslims vs non-Muslim's attitudes toward Muslims. Ie, while virtually 100% of Jordanians have an "unfavorable" view of Jews, only 22% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Muslims.

These numbers (which, btw, are down since 2002 in most countries, contrary to what the Democratic Party and many foreigners would have us believe) paint a distubing picture of widespread support for terrorism in Muslim nations (with emphasis on a few nations in specific problem areas).

These attitudes also manifest in this forum. There is a disturbing tenancy for some to defend the concept of terrorism by arguing over its definition or equating intentional vs unintentional deaths, while refusing to unequivocably condemn specific acts under any name.

Word-play also happens with words like "condone" vs "justify" vs "understand". Such hairs are not worth splitting: no matter how one chooses to defend terrorism, its still murder and still wrong. No, it is not ever even "understandable" (that one came up recently). Even for someone who recently lost a loved-one, temporary insanity can legally only last a matter of minutes. After that, a person is responsible for their actions and to act on rage and kill uninvolved people because of some weak association is murder, period. It is not understandable. It makes no more sense than killing the neighbors of someone who killed a family member of yours in a car accident.

It may be noteworthy that they didn't ask Americans if they support suicide bombings. Anyone wonder why that is? Its because Americans never do such things. (caveat: Oaklahoma City is the only such incident I know of and was an attack on the government, not random civilians). It almost sounds absurd to even suggest it: Why haven't any family members of 9/11 victims flown to Saudia Arabia or Afghanistan to blow up busses and trains? Simple answer: we just don't do such things. That significant fractions of certain Muslim countries not only tolerate, but actually condone such actions is horrid.

 

[AKG]

I think you're wrong about the "understandable" issue. Although some people will be quick to dismiss that it is understandable because they may feel that it, in some sense, condones the act, there is a difference between "understandable" and "condoned" and it can be argued that their actions are understandable. If a group feels that they are threatened and that their only possible recourse is terrorism, then it is understandable that they would commit terrorist acts. Whether they really are threatened and whether terrorism really is their only resort are irrelevant, because it is understandable that people might accidentally come to false conclusions regarding these matters. If they are largely uneducated and blasted with propoganda all the time, we can certainly understand why they would have these false impressions.

Also, consider the following:

Hindu Community Anticipates Opening of Their New Temple
The Hamilton Spectator

HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA, November 2, 2004: It has been over three years since the Hamilton Hindu community was devastated when their temple was burned down after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (by attackers thinking the temple was connected to Islam). However the community pulled together and now in January of 2005 they are preparing to officially open their new place of worship in the same location but in a different structure. After consulting astrologers, the Hindu Samaj Temple board of directors decided that the opening ceremonies would take place in January 2005 as the time period from mid-January to mid-July is considered to be the most auspicious time for the temple. Dr. Mahendra Deonarain, religious secretary on the board, explains, "Temple leaders weren't willing to leave anything to fate after their Hamilton Mountain temple was burned down in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So they enlisted the expertise of not one but two astrologers on the question of exactly where to position the new temple building and another two on when best to launch it." Many in the congregation would have liked to open the temple with Deepavali celebrations but instead they celebrated the Hindu New Year in the basement of the still-unfinished temple. The news release says, "Congregants are impatient to unveil the new building, made fireproof by a steel structure. But drywall dust must be replaced by tile, carpet and paint. They are even more anxious to have a look at brand new marble and granite deities freshly arrived from India." (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2004/11/16.shtml#6)

 

[The Smoking Man]

It may be noteworthy that they didn't ask Americans if they support suicide bombings. Anyone wonder why that is? Its because Americans never do such things. (caveat: Oaklahoma City is the only such incident I know of and was an attack on the government, not random civilians). It almost sounds absurd to even suggest it: Why haven't any family members of 9/11 victims flown to Saudia Arabia or Afghanistan to blow up busses and trains? Simple answer: we just don't do such things. That significant fractions of certain Muslim countries not only tolerate, but actually condone such actions is horrid.

It may be that they are asking the wrong questions.

Maybe if they asked, "Do you feel like you are a member of a nation with the most powerful military on earth?"

"Do you feel you are represented on the world stage with Justice?"

"Do you feel that the most powerful nation on Earth is interfering with your country in a detrimental manner?"

"Are you desperate enough to do anything to stop international injustice?"

Russ, any questionnaire can be written to extract the information in the way you desire it.

You talk of splitting hairs over the definition of words ... here is something you have failed to take into consideration ... all those words you mentioned ... They're a red herring. The questions were not written in English.

The questions were written in America by the Pew Group and have about as much validity as the IQ tests given to African Americans that 'proved' they were of lower intelligence.

Your assumptions as in the above paragraph?

Americans don't need to support suicide bombings when they have an efficient military that can kill thousands of people from the comfort of jets, bradleys, humvees, tanks, battle cruisers, aircraft carriers and ultimately ... bunkers with a button that can launch nuclear devices. And all of this is done with minimal casualties on the side of the Americans.

What you don't seem to 'get' are all the people who come out and support 'nuking China' ... Americans do things in a big way ... don't you think that 'nuking China' is the biggest suicide bombing that you could ever come up with?

Remember, a statistician is a man who can have his head in an oven and his feet frozen into a block of ice and say, "On average, I feel okay".

 

[PerennialII]

These attitudes also manifest in this forum. There is a disturbing tenancy for some to defend the concept of terrorism by arguing over its definition or equating intentional vs unintentional deaths, while refusing to unequivocably condemn specific acts under any name.

Word-play also happens with words like "condone" vs "justify" vs "understand". Such hairs are not worth splitting: no matter how one chooses to defend terrorism, its still murder and still wrong. No, it is not ever even "understandable" (that one came up recently). Even for someone who recently lost a loved-one, temporary insanity can legally only last a matter of minutes. After that, a person is responsible for their actions and to act on rage and kill uninvolved people because of some weak association is murder, period. It is not understandable. It makes no more sense than killing the neighbors of someone who killed a family member of yours in a car accident.

How can labeling something beyond comprehension be an approach to discussion, or anything for that matter? Me-good-you-bad - isn't a moral guideline, I'm surprised how it is so easy to immediately start questioning and undermining the 'character' and 'motifs' of persons who're trying to comprehend the situation and the root causes of terrorism. This sort of an approach essentially makes it a taboo, which is given a label and can't be addressed in any way, making the discussion intolerable and if let to prevail, nonexistent. The world isn't black and white, loss of a loved one hurts as much in all parts of the globe, one universal truth in this matter.

Well put AKG.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you're wrong about the "understandable" issue. Although some people will be quick to dismiss that it is understandable because they may feel that it, in some sense, condones the act, there is a difference between "understandable" and "condoned" and it can be argued that their actions are understandable. If a group feels that they are threatened and that their only possible recourse is terrorism, then it is understandable that they would commit terrorist acts.

Well, that's different from the context in which it was used, but what you're saying has anther problem. Someone in another thread described that as "f'd up logic" - but its still wrong: logic requires a good starting premise to yield a correct answer. In the case of this "f'd up logic", the reason it is "f'd" up is the starting premise ("feels that...their only possible recourse is terrorism") is flawed. Terrorism is never a viable option, much less the only one.

 

[russ_watters]

It may be that they are asking the wrong questions.

Maybe if they asked, "Do you feel like you are a member of a nation with the most powerful military on earth?"

"Do you feel you are represented on the world stage with Justice?"

"Do you feel that the most powerful nation on Earth is interfering with your country in a detrimental manner?"

"Are you desperate enough to do anything to stop international injustice?"

Russ, any questionnaire can be written to extract the information in the way you desire it.

Quite frankly, the questions asked in the poll were straightforward and the ones you ask are not. It appears you desire obfuscation above all else on this issue.

You talk of splitting hairs over the definition of words ... here is something you have failed to take into consideration ... all those words you mentioned ... They're a red herring. The questions were not written in English.

If you'll notice, the poll didn't use the word "terrorism", it described a type of act, thus alleviating the problem of the emotionally charged word.

The questions were written in America by the Pew Group and have about as much validity as the IQ tests given to African Americans that 'proved' they were of lower intelligence.

You are asserting the poll is flawed/invalid. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Poll data from somewhere else that says something different?

Americans don't need to support suicide bombings when they have an efficient military that can kill thousands of people...

The US military has not attacked Saudia Arabia and Saudia Arabia was the source of most of the terrorists. Therefore, American citizens do (by the "f'd up logic" you prefer) need to start going over to Saudia Arabia and bombing busses.

What you don't seem to 'get' are all the people who come out and support 'nuking China' ... Americans do things in a big way ... don't you think that 'nuking China' is the biggest suicide bombing that you could ever come up with?

Um... you wish to present some poll data that indicates that a significant fraction of the US would favor "nuking China"?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm surprised how it is so easy to immediately start questioning and undermining the 'character' and 'motifs' of persons who're trying to comprehend the situation and the root causes of terrorism.

You honestly believe that people in here who are opinionated enough to argue these things are honestly trying to comprehend anything? To me it looks like there is an awful lot of purposeful evasion and obfuscation and very little attempt to understand and be consistent with the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

This needs to be emphasized:

The world isn't black and white, loss of a loved one hurts as much in all parts of the globe, one universal truth in this matter.

I agree with that, but that begs the question: Why don't American civilians fly to Saudia Arabia and bomb busses? [edited for a loophole that implied something different from what was meant] Clearly, there is something about that pain that is not universal.

 

[stoned]

how many americans support killing innocent civilians ?
stupid discussion anyway, because if USA were bombed, invaded etc you would have resistance.

 

[vanesch]

Why don't Americans fly to Saudia Arabia and bomb busses?

This is just too nice an opportunity :tongue2:

Because they fly to Iraq to bomb cities :rofl:

 

[ron damon]

Just How Many Muslims Support Terrosism

Way too many. And most of the ones who don't actively support it, won't condemn it either. And most of the ones who condemn it are not willing to take decisive action against it.

Also, isn't it funny how they act all indignant when one dares criticize them? They slam planes into our buildings, bomb our buses and trains full of civilians, and on top we end up apologizing to them?

 

[vanesch]

[...] paint a distubing picture of widespread support for terrorism in Muslim nations (with emphasis on a few nations in specific problem areas).
[...]
That significant fractions of certain Muslim countries not only tolerate, but actually condone such actions is horrid.

Yes, did you only find that out now ? Europe (France in particular) has a slightly longer history of bearded Muslim zealots with bombs. So, given those data and the fact that many Muslims and Muslim states like terrorism in the West, do you still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq (one of the few Arab countries with NO significant link to terrorism) and that they would welcome you over there, and that the terrorism plague would be cured or vastly improved by doing so ? Or can you understand the (after the fact justified) fear of a lot of people that you would just open a Pandora Box ?

Even better: what do you think "democracy" will do for you over there, given these data ?

Or are you only discovering NOW at what point they hate us, our view of the world and our values ? And do you finally see the difference between Germany or Japan, and Arabs ? And why your little plan over there is doomed ?

 

[BobG]

So your conclusion is that a significant portion of Muslims support terrorism or is it that a significant portion of Middle Eastern nations with a recent history of conflict support terrorism (although I don't know of Morocco being involved in any conflicts)?

It may seem like a fine point, since Arab nations are mostly Muslim, but would you also draw the same conclusion about Catholic attitudes towards Protestants? How many Americans gave financial support to the IRA prior to 9/11 and what religion did most of the contributors belong to? (Note that the actual question used on the survey was the generic "Violence against civilian targets", not suicide bombers.)

It would have been interesting to have had Kuwait, Qatar, and Yemen in the poll (they're the closest thing to democracy in the Middle East) and to have had Saudi Arabia, a country whose private citizens have contributed financially to Al Qaeda through charitable organizations. I don't know what the results would have been, but it would have provided some interesting contrasts.

Edit: In other words, I think it's the idea that you categorized Muslims in general that caused the response. It's hard to deny that significant portions of the population of some Middle Eastern nations see jihadists as underdogs against the evil empire.

 

[Spin_Network]

Word-play also happens with words like "condone" vs "justify" vs "understand". Such hairs are not worth splitting: no matter how one chooses to defend terrorism, its still murder and still wrong. No, it is not ever even "understandable" (that one came up recently). Even for someone who recently lost a loved-one, temporary insanity can legally only last a matter of minutes. After that, a person is responsible for their actions and to act on rage and kill uninvolved people because of some weak association is murder, period. It is not understandable. It makes no more sense than killing the neighbors of someone who killed a family member of yours in a car accident.

.

Here in the UK for instance:http://www.mcb.org.uk/home.php
matches the American:http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

Now interestingly if one clicks the link here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/#
then at the 'New footage of bomber' link , one gets an insight to one of the London Bombers in 1998. The recent London Bombings shows that Muslim Youngsters are quite impressionable and influenced by Extremism:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4692697.stm

There has been an overwhelmin condemnation of terrorist attacks, by the Muslim Community in the UK, but what is 'fundemental' and what is 'Brainwashing'? a large propotion of the Muslim Community, close friends of the Bombers and their Families have come out in force, and have spoken at every opportunity to condem the London Bombing.

Most Muslims have voiced the opinion that the Bombers have been 'Brainwashed', it now turns out that the Killers, have been murdered themselves (they were duped/brainwashed into thinking that they would have enough time to rendevouz before the Bombs went off), and the Bombers were somehow themselves victims!

Ok..so the consensus is clear that Muslim's appear to be more vunerable to 'Brainwashing' than other ethnic people's. Is there Genetic Evidence to clarify if this is so, if so, then the Religion of Muslims, must tone down, the fundamental scripture to a level that does not cause young immpressionable Muslims to become obvious 'martyr fools'.

Of course if Muslims to have tendancies to be easily brainwashed (and this is the overall concensus/judgement of most Muslims speaking out after 7/7), then this does not benefit their Religion in any way, the same 'brainwashing' techniques are used in Islamic Teaching/indoctrination?

I have ventured into Islamic writings, but have always found it to be a peacefull and serene line of religious reasoning, but I am not a practicising religious person of any kind.

 

[Burnsys]

Russ. for experimental purpose only. i would like to ask you a question:

How many terrorists is the us government suporting right now, and how many did it support in the past?

for example:

In the past:
OBL
Saddam hussein

Rigth Now:
President Karimov
Luis Posada Carriles

 

[cronxeh]

Americans don't suicide bomb? Well I can tell you why not - because it just sounds like a stupid idea.

I know a lot of New Yorkers who signed up for the USMC or re-signed up for Reserves and National Guard and USAF and all the other branches, and let me tell you something - when the American military goes to war, the enemy body counts are in 10:1 ratios. Its not that the world hates us, its just that the scale of 'balance' is always tipped in our favor. Its not that they are brute animals who don't have any compassion or emotions - that is just plain false, its just that they don't want American troops and GI Joe boots on their soil, which is kinda understandable and yet somehow ununderstandable by most Americans.

Some think of Iraqis as ingrates and wonder why don't they bend over and praise us instead of the Mecca, and cooperate with us - well most of them do, and most of them understand your point of view. However there will always be those who are used to the good 'ol times and don't want any change.

Imagine tomorrow the Russian Air Force takes down most of the defense in US and has the tanks rolling across the Arizona border, into Texas and over G.W. Bush's property. Premise? You nuked Hiroshima - mass murder, etc etc. Justified? You say no way

What do the rednecks do? They crawl out with guns and fight back.

If you declared war, get ready for the body counts and never assume that it would just go down 'smoothly' and everything will be 'ok' - that's not the lesson. War always has casualty and is always pointless

 

[PerennialII]

You honestly believe that people in here who are opinionated enough to argue these things are honestly trying to comprehend anything? To me it looks like there is an awful lot of purposeful evasion and obfuscation and very little attempt to understand and be consistent with the issue.

... I do ... I sure don't presume otherwise generally or there wouldn't be anywhere to go in a discussion - it seems that lately in this respect there are two sets of arguments - one defending actions of a country or whatever, and another going against any violent/military action when discussing terrorism, foreign policies etc. And 95% of the time is used on knee jerk reactions when people (more or less blindly) defend agendas rather than engage in a discussion with any objectivity.

 

[Art]

Regarding the source of this data;

The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, currently Principal, the Albright Group LLC in Washington

Madeleine K. Albright is the lady a U.S. general labelled insane for her comment to Colin Powell "What's the point of having this superb military if we don't use it."

Hardly a credible source

 

[russ_watters]

This is just too nice an opportunity :tongue2:

Because they fly to Iraq to bomb cities :rofl:

Funny if it was meant to be, but that doesn't address the question. The way I had it in bold was a simplification of the earlier version. The full version is:

Why do the civilian relatives of 9/11 victims not fly to Saudia Arabia to bomb busses? Ie, American civilians do not commit acts of terrorism. Why not?

 

[russ_watters]

Madeleine K. Albright is the lady a U.S. general labelled insane for her comment to Colin Powell "What's the point of having this superb military if we don't use it."

Hardly a credible source

Please cite the medical evaluation of her mental state or retract this statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Americans don't suicide bomb? Well I can tell you why not - because it just sounds like a stupid idea.

I agree - but beyond stupid, its immoral.

Imagine tomorrow the Russian Air Force takes down most of the defense in US and has the tanks rolling across the Arizona border, into Texas and over G.W. Bush's property. Premise? You nuked Hiroshima - mass murder, etc etc. Justified? You say no way

What do the rednecks do? They crawl out with guns and fight back.

If you declared war, get ready for the body counts and never assume that it would just go down 'smoothly' and everything will be 'ok' - that's not the lesson. War always has casualty and is always pointless

In no part of that scenario do I see American civilians going to Russia to kill Russian civilians.

 

[russ_watters]

... I do ... I sure don't presume otherwise generally or there wouldn't be anywhere to go in a discussion - it seems that lately in this respect there are two sets of arguments - one defending actions of a country or whatever, and another going against any violent/military action when discussing terrorism, foreign policies etc.

I just don't see that. I see one side willing to cite (and more importantly, use)definitions and the other side not. I see one side citing factual data and the other side making things up. I see one side asking and answering direct questions and the other side not.

 

[russ_watters]

...if USA were bombed, invaded etc you would have resistance.

Of course you would - but does that necessarily imply that the resistance will purposely target civilians?

 

[stoned]

I agree - but beyond stupid, its immoral. In no part of that scenario do I see American civilians going to Russia to kill Russian civilians.

As usual you underestime your fellow compatriots.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, did you only find that out now ?

Uh, no...

So, given those data and the fact that many Muslims and Muslim states like terrorism in the West, do you still think it was a good idea to invade Iraq (one of the few Arab countries with NO significant link to terrorism)

The part in parentheses is factually incorrect. Saddam was a very strong supporter of terrorism. People often extrapolate that from the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and it isn't correct.

 

[NateTG]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Russ, you're spewing rhetoric. If you want to argue that there is some sort of cultural bias associated with the muslim religeon, why do you use on ad hominem claptrap such as "...people in forums such as this...", or selective sampling - most notably the prominence of Jordan while only 4 out of 1000 million muslims in the world live there (it would be more accurate to generalize based on pairs of indentical muslim twins.)

It may be noteworthy that they didn't ask Americans if they support suicide bombings. Anyone wonder why that is? Its because Americans never do such things.

In the US, suicide tactics are considered a last resort. However, there are certainly examples of suicidal tactics in western, and in mainstream US culture. A vivid example of glorified suicide tactics for me might be the scene in Independance Day when Russel Case (Randy Quaid) rams his F-16 into the alien spacecraft .

(caveat: Oaklahoma City is the only such incident I know of and was an attack on the government, not random civilians).

Wow, you really should get some better taste in straw men. The bombing of the Oaklahoma City federal building was not a suicide attack.

It almost sounds absurd to even suggest it: Why haven't any family members of 9/11 victims flown to Saudia Arabia or Afghanistan to blow up busses and trains? Simple answer: we just don't do such things. That significant fractions of certain Muslim countries not only tolerate, but actually condone such actions is horrid.

There are two even simpler answers: They realize that blowing things up isn't going to bring back their lost family, or prevent similar attacks in the future, and there's a bunch of mililtary personel already working on it.

I am reminded of an episode of "The West Wing" where the KKK is suggested as an American analogue to muslim extremism, and it certainly seems like an appropriate example of a home-grown terrorist organization.

 

[russ_watters]

So your conclusion is that a significant portion of Muslims support terrorism or is it that a significant portion of Middle Eastern nations with a recent history of conflict support terrorism (although I don't know of Morocco being involved in any conflicts)?

The way I characterized it was "with emphasis on a few nations in specific problem areas". Ie, some Muslim nations appear to be hotbeds of Islamic extremism and some do not.

It may seem like a fine point, since Arab nations are mostly Muslim, but would you also draw the same conclusion about Catholic attitudes towards Protestants?

No, I wouldn't.

How many Americans gave financial support to the IRA prior to 9/11...?

I would be very interested in knowing that. Also important in that question would be how many were of Irish decent - just like with my above caveat. The Irish terrorism problem is specific and unique to one country's internal politics. The Islamic extremism problem has no such specific boundary.

It would have been interesting to have had Kuwait, Qatar, and Yemen in the poll (they're the closest thing to democracy in the Middle East) and to have had Saudi Arabia, a country whose private citizens have contributed financially to Al Qaeda through charitable organizations. I don't know what the results would have been, but it would have provided some interesting contrasts.

Yes, it is unfortunate that they are not in the poll. I think it is reasonable to surmise that part of the reason they are not is they are such hotbeds of Islamic extremism, conducting the poll wasn't even possible.

Edit: In other words, I think it's the idea that you categorized Muslims in general that caused the response.

I don't think I did categorize Muslims in general. I was quite careful to include the caveat that most of the problems were in some specific countries. In fact, many Muslims in the US go to great lengths to distance themselves (literally and figuratively) from Islamic extremism.

 

[stoned]

Uh, no... The part in parentheses is factually incorrect. Saddam was a very strong supporter of terrorism. People often extrapolate that from the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and it isn't correct.

where you get this from ? FOX news ? oh yeah he gave cash to families of dead suicide bombers in Palestine, who are fighting for their country.

 

[Art]

Please cite the medical evaluation of her mental state or retract this statement.

I am reporting a statement by a US general perhaps you should address your request for medical evaluation / retraction to him. Colin Powell also wrote that he nearly had an aneurysm when she said it. Perhaps he should also supply medical proof of that fact.
source:- Colin Powell with Joseph Persico, My American Journey (NY, 1995), p. 576

 

[russ_watters]

I am reporting a statement by a US general perhaps you should address your request for medical evaluation / retraction to him. Colin Powell also wrote that he nearly had an aneurism when she said it. Perhaps he should also supply medical proof of that fact.

Please link the quote where Powell said it then or retract that as well.

 

[Art]

Please link the quote where Powell said it then or retract that as well.

Already done! For your future reference if you need additional information from me then please request it civilly and if at all possible I will comply. There is no need to make demands as it only serves to antagonise.

 

[stoned]

muslims = evil, america = good. that is what you mean right? russ w. ?

 

[russ_watters]

where you get this from ? FOX news ? oh yeah he gave cash to families of dead suicide bombers in Palestine, who are fighting for their country.

You're saying you didn't know that terrorists (foreign and Iraqi) trained in Iraq? That Saddam Hussein gave cash rewards to the faimilies of suicide bombers who attacked Israel? That Iraq trained terrorists in tactics for hijacking airliners in its own government run facilities? That the US found many terrorist camps during its invasion?

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=289&x_context=3
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Already done! For your future reference if you need additional information from me then please request it civilly and if at all possible I will comply. There is no need to make demands as it only serves to antagonise.

Edit: misread. You said "a US general" - ie, not necessarily Colin Powell. Fair enough. Was this unnamed general a psychologist? Is he qualified to give such a diagnosis? Did Albright actually write the survey report? Did she personally falsify the data? Do you think the data was fabricated?

Pew research is highly regarded (as evidenced by their frequent usage by news organizations). You'll have to do much better than throw insults at people associated with them.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you're spewing rhetoric.

Spewing rhetoric? I posted a poll! This is hard, factual data. If you have an opinion on what that data means, by all means express it.

If you want to argue that there is some sort of cultural bias associated with the muslim religeon, why do you use on ad hominem claptrap such as "...people in forums such as this...",

I'm explaining where my perception comes from. The point is that my perception is an accurate reflection of reality.

or selective sampling - most notably the prominence of Jordan while only 4 out of 1000 million muslims in the world live there (it would be more accurate to generalize based on pairs of indentical muslim twins.)

Again, I was specific in saying that it was certain countries that are the problem.

In the US, suicide tactics are considered a last resort. However, there are certainly examples of suicidal tactics in western, and in mainstream US culture. A vivid example of glorified suicide tactics for me might be the scene in Independance Day when Russel Case (Randy Quaid) rams his F-16 into the alien spacecraft .

Ok, a movie... but in any case, that wasn't civilians killing other civilians out of hate. If you have an example of Americans doing that, please cite it.

Wow, you really should get some better taste in straw men. The bombing of the Oaklahoma City federal building was not a suicide attack.

Actually, I brought it up because I figured someone would throw it back at me - whether an attack is a suicide attack is not what makes it terrorism. Its terrorism because its aimed at civlians. I think you're missing the point.

There are two even simpler answers: They realize that blowing things up isn't going to bring back their lost family, or prevent similar attacks in the future, and there's a bunch of mililtary personel already working on it.

Ok... so a followup: why don't the majority Jordanians realize that?

I am reminded of an episode of "The West Wing" where the KKK is suggested as an American analogue to muslim extremism, and it certainly seems like an appropriate example of a home-grown terrorist organization.

Arguable- in any case, how many KKK members do you think there are out there today? Last year, there was a KKK rally at Valley Forge and the dozen or so KKK members were outnumbered by several thousand protesting against them. When Hamaas marches in Syria, how many Syrians march against them?