The new Pew survey of Muslim Americans finds that they are generally satisfied with their communities and more moderate in their beliefs than Muslims in Western Europe — both reasons why they have more successfully assimilated here.
But the survey also revealed that 47 percent of respondents identified themselves as Muslims first and Americans second, and only 40 percent believe that groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Moreover, 15 percent of Muslim Americans under age 30 said they believe that suicide bombings often or sometimes can be justified in defense of Islam.
There’s no denying that those numbers are disturbing.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Ray Thornton on Gorbachev blames West for Georgia crisis
- Nathaniel on Open thread 8/27
- Nathaniel on Tiahrt pumps gas, Jordan’s campaign
- ictBest on Find common ground on arena neighborhood needs
- Chas on Open thread 8/27
- Agnatha on Clinton did her part Tuesday
- MaxGrobnik on Open thread 8/27
- Chas on Open thread 8/27
- MaxGrobnik on Open thread 8/27
- Chas on Open thread 8/27
61 Comments
Disturbing? Let’s throw the Muslims back to the countries they came from, and then see if they still think bombings are “justified”.
I have been hearing commentary on this survey for days now, most are “the glass is half full/half empty” but more the half empty kind. Focusing on the minority of these opinion instead of the majority. There would be slight difference, the percentages would be alike more or less if the survey was given to the American public at large.
ON whether Bush was responsible for 9-11, on the subject of Moslems and extremism and the like. The only real difference I think would be on the subject of suicide bombing.The numbers of Non-Moslems who think that suicide bombing would at times be justified in defense of the faith would be less. LoL one of those commenting was Glen Beck and he may have misspoke. But point out that the same percentage of Christians also describe themselves as Christian first and Americans second. Though he did not comment on how many Christians would think a suicide attack to defend Christianity was justifiable.
Those numbers need not be so disturbing when viewed in the context of what we Americans will do when our values are threatened.
When viewed in the current propaganda hysteria, which we Americans are being bombarded with day in and day out, where Muslims are depicted as “terrorists” {the justification slogan } then yes, the propaganda is working.
We are basing our understanding of Islam as presented by that propaganda, not the reality of the moment.
What’s disturbing is the lack of accurate information not tainted by propaganda.
15% of American Muslims under 30 are not opposed to suicide bombing. A lesser percentage in other age groups. So in the neighborhood of a couple hundred thousand potential suicide bombers in our midst.
Sounds like a problem to me.
Out, Just gave the propagandist answer without mentioning the provocation for retaliation.
The propagandist never includes the reason which might trigger a violent reaction from those being tormented.
The propagandist always infers to the reprisal as having no cause, thus creating a ‘beast’ where none exists.
The cause that was given was in defense of the Moslem faith. Is suicide attacks allowable. only 15 percent said yes.
“Let’s throw the Muslims back to the countries they came from”
A significant number are native born Americans, second and third generation. What country do you want us to “throw them back to?”
Ed:
I rarely respond to you, given what you are, but I’ll state it plain as day.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, SCHOOLS, MALLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THAT IS TRUE FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY CAUSE, AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, BY ANYBODY. IT MATTERS NOT HOW JUST THE CAUSE MAY BE.
PERIOD.
If a significant number of American Muslims (or any other Americans) think otherwise, we have a problem.
It is not the cause that makes the terrorist, it is the tactics.
well said GM and a good point”It is not the cause that makes the terrorist, it is the tactics.”
WD
“Moreover, 15 percent of Muslim Americans under age 30 said they believe that suicide bombings often or sometimes can be justified in defense of Islam.”
First, it contains qualifiers; “often or sometimes can be justified ”
But does not mention the specific: What about Islam that needs to be protected? IE: “Killing those on their way to pray?”
You’re painting the ‘beast’ with too broad of a brush…
“THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, SCHOOLS, MALLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THAT IS TRUE FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY CAUSE, AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, BY ANYBODY. IT MATTERS NOT HOW JUST THE CAUSE MAY BE.
PERIOD.”
You mean with 4 million cluster bombs, dropped in Lebanon, which look like toys and have been killing kids and continue to kill kids as we speak…
Ed -
I’m not gonna get into a pissing match with you. Your anti-semitism is apparant and well known; perhaps that is why you cannot see clearly what is plain as day.
I made no qualifiers, and I’ll stand by it.
There is nothing wrong with the Jewish Religion, so save the slogans…
There is something very wrong with current Israeli leadership…
I’ve written against Hamas firing rockets into Israel, have you written against Israel firing artillery shells into Gaza refugee camps….I didn’t think so..
And I’m damned sure what you are…
Ed - you claim there is nothing wrong with the Jewish religion, but just the other day you were trashing Zionism.
We recognize that our citizens need to hold our country in high regard, but it would be nearly impossible to make ANY religious person place their nation over their GOD.
When people have attempted to force this issue in the past - people ended up dying before recanting their faith.
Children WILL die as a by-product of war - but we should NEVER go out of our way to target them, specifically.
It worries me that we have folks like this living within our midst, and I think we have EVERY right to pose this question to each immigrant hopeful - and those who fail the test - need to go back home.
I honestly think that people on every side of the political spectrum are dispositioned to have some type of conspiracy theory belief.
While driving around with some fellow Marines the other day it amazed me at some of the crack pot things they believe and they are not liberals or democrats either.
So it is no surprise that so many Democrats believe that Bush was behind 9-11 or that muslims think the way they do either…
Disturbing yes. Surprise no.
Parkey=Troll
Knowing that the existance of this very post violates what I am going to say next…
“No soup for you, troll!”
Just attend a Muslim prayer service like around Ramadan or one of their other holidays. You will feel like a mouse in a cat farm and your women folk will be seated behind all the men as they are not considered to be significant in the Muslim society.
To Muslims and their faith, it’s about merchandising. Merchandising their beliefs, their hatred, their ideology and their opinion that differs from theirs.
They look to fix the balance sheet of correctness on their side. In order to do that, they must eliminate the competition by assimilation.
One only has to look at the aspects of dishonest merchandising and see how this approach is being used on the non-Muslim world. If you can’t kill them all, then press them with dishonest statements and lies.
Make their own citizens believe that their governments are corrupt and unworthy.
The Muslim technique appears to be working on quite a few in the United States.
“The Muslim technique appears to be working on quite a few in the United States.”
You just surpassed Butter for the Dumb Post of the Day award.
“THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, SCHOOLS, MALLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THAT IS TRUE FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY CAUSE, AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, BY ANYBODY. IT MATTERS NOT HOW JUST THE CAUSE MAY BE.”
Yeah right. Tell the American Injuns that shit- if you can still find any.
If the USA would quit killing the Arabs and stealing their lands via our proxy state Israel, maybe they’d be a bit less pissed off at us! Just maybe.
Kev
What was systematically done to the American Indian was genocide, and horrible. No argument there.
But it’s done. If you can figure out a way to undo it . . . .
Let’s deal with the real world, here, now.
Kev -
Terrorism, and our condemnation of it, is not about the policy differences.
It’s about the tactic.
And if you can justify the tactics of terrorism, then, yes, we have a problem.
That is the trouble with different cultures in a big melting pot; each has its own beliefs and agendas.The attitudes of some are not to put down roots but to take what they can claim.Capitalism is really about serving one’s self.We are the most powerful nation on the planet but soon we will be taken apart and stripped of our wealth, it is the nature of man being the consumer.Justifying the tactics of terrorism is the ultimate recourse and the only resource of the minority if that minority is not being satisfied.Yes, we have a problem.
“Tell the American Injuns that shit”
That was way out of line, Kev. That was totally inappropriate to make a comparison to terrorists and the indigenous people fighting against genocide and the rape of their land.
Disgusting.
I would bet money that a very very high percentage of Christians would identify themselves as Christians FIRST, and Americans second.
God, Country, Family…in that order.
The scariest part of this poll is the suicide bombing. I don’t know a lot of Christians who believe that is appropriate. Has anyone polled them?
“THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, SCHOOLS, MALLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THAT IS TRUE FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY CAUSE, AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, BY ANYBODY. IT MATTERS NOT HOW JUST THE CAUSE MAY BE.”
Be that as it may, targeting civilians has always been the objective of war. The purpose of a military has been to shield the population, but if an attacker can evade them…In WWII, whole cities were targeted and destroyed by both sides, regardless of their value as military targets. Need I remind anyone of Dresden or Hiroshima, where the primary objective was the death of as many civilians as possible? Why is 50lbs of high explosives delivered to it’s target by hand “terrorism” while 500lbs of the same stuff delivered by an F/A-18 “Homeland Defense,” even when the Homeland is half a world away? Whether or not we are “deliberatly targeting” or recklessly targeting them makes little difference to the many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed. They’re just as dead!
GMC writes “THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, SCHOOLS, MALLS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. THAT IS TRUE FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY CAUSE, AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, BY ANYBODY. IT MATTERS NOT HOW JUST THE CAUSE MAY BE.
PERIOD.”
Really?
Because how do you explain the two atomic bombs we dropped on civilian centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2.
The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands who died either immediately or slowly from radiation poisoning (or even more slowly from cancer) were civilians exactly as you describe.
I’m not trying to goad you into a defense of the use of the A bomb. I think–had I been alive at that time after Pearl Harbor etc.–I would have been in favor of blowing as many “Japs” away as possible.
Even some Japanese I’ve talked to recently believe that the use of the A bomb was justified–because of Japanese atrocities and because it was the only way to end the war against the facist miltarists who had taken control of the government.
But make no mistake–it was terror bombing of civilian women and children who had no way of defending themselves . . .
Good post, Jed.
I guess I should READ the other posts before I post.
Great minds think alike.
Hehe . . .
P_Mom–Yup, exactly. I was thinking the same thing.
When the Amish say they are Christians first and Americans hardly at all, nobody has a bit of a problem with it.
But let a Muslim say it . . .
As elucidated first by William Tecumseh Sherman, and then expanded upon from the Civil War onwards, the goal of war modern war is to destroy the capacity for the other side to continue waging war. This would include, industrial plant, food (either scorched earth or blockade), and, unfortunately, cities and civilians…with the idea that this helps to destroy the psychological basis for the enemy’s continued fighting.
I think the only reason that guns and bombs are considered OK while other methods and weapons are not has to do with our own conceptions of the death one would suffer by a certain weapon. Guns and bombs seem to do a pretty good job, usually immediately or pretty quickly. Gas warfare or germ warfare makes us think of horrible, lingering deaths, as does death from radiation poisoning or burns. In any event, as Jed said, no matter how you do it, they’re all still dead.
If Islam were to survive, it would need to modernize, like the Catholic Church did. Otherwise, people would see that this religion is opposed to human rights and condones attacking others in the name of God.
Some Muslim values are great, like alms giving. We need to be helping the poor more, whether it be helping them help themselves or helping them with welfare. Others, like oppressing women are not.
We don’t call them victims of terrorism, we call them collateral damage. What was ’shock and awe’ but terrorism on a national (ok,ok, multi-national)scale.It’s impossible for me to make a ‘terrorist’ distinction based on how the explosives are delivered. Whether women and children are the intended targets or not, they inevitably are the victims. Such is the nature of war.
Republican writes: “Just attend a Muslim prayer service like around Ramadan or one of their other holidays. You will feel like a mouse in a cat farm and your women folk will be seated behind all the men as they are not considered to be significant in the Muslim society.”And David writes: “Others, like oppressing women are not.”
Wow, where to begin? Your misunderstanding of Islam and Muslim culture is laughable.
While certainly Muslim women are separate from men at mosques, this is not because they are considered unequal or unworthy. The separation of men and women at mosques is to create a focus not on partnerships or friendships, but rather on worshiping Allah. Muslim men and women pray the same, and say the same prayers. Don’t criticize something just because it is different. And understand something before you demonize it. Oh wait… this is “republican” I’m speaking to.
Yes, Muslim, Arab, Persian, and Middle-Eastern cultures are very different from our own. But do you ever consider the reasons for the alleged “oppression” of women? Women are not allowed to drive cars or sit in the front seat of a vehicle to protect her. Especially in earlier times, and even today, vehicles (be they automobiles or animal-driven carriages) were often hijacked, and the hijackers very often kidnapped and raped women. The idea behind the hijab and the burka is again to protect the identity and safety of the woman — in Muslim culture, the hair of a woman is a very powerful sex symbol, and again, there are many rogue men (as there are in our culture) that would get the wrong idea from such a sight.Again, if you’re going to criticize a religion and a culture, please at least attempt to understand it first.
Back to the subject at hand, though. It’s really important to see both sides of the statistics presented. Many posters are making a huge deal of the 15% figure — 15% of young Muslims think that suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified as in defense of Islam. This means that even combining two categories of the survey — often justified and sometimes justified — only results in 15% of a rather large population believing it can be justified. What about the 85% of young Muslim Americans who believe that suicide attacks are rarely or never justified? Certainly there is a comparable number of young Christians who believe that it is necessary to wage war in defense of Christianity. Don’t look at just what is posted — think about what isn’t posted as well.
Good post, Ms. Elizabeth. Black is not always black when exposed to the light of day.
Thank you.
Well Elizabeth, then you should address the Pew study referenced in the topic starter thread about the American Muslim, not me.
Your statements are in disagreement with that study, yet you assign all the ails of misinformation to me.
It appears you have a problem identifying who or what you are disagreeing.
Mr. Republican - expert on all the world’s religions - just ask him - he’ll tell you what to think.
To crystallize Elizabeth’s position, if I may (I don’t wish to intrude), the basic reasons for the apparent inequities in treatment between male and female Muslims are largely based on two factors: the removal of sexuality as a major issue in social decisions and functions; and the protection of the women involved. Given the state of affairs — especially in the birthplace of Islam — I think those goals are rather noble.
Now that that’s out of the way…I think the biggest fact that everyone here is overlooking lies within a question presented by the Pew poll itself. The question said suicide bombing. It did not modify or qualify the suicide bombing. Such attacks are not necessarily attacks on malls, schools, etc (in fact, those usually are rocket/mortar/grenade attacks at least in the middle east). Perhaps — and probably — the “sometimes” meant “if the target isn’t a group of civilians” for a vast majority of those who answered in the affirmative.
People, especially here, it seems, have this dogged tendency to not only expect but even assume the very worst. I’m all for caution, but serious consideration has to be given to such questions, and perhaps another nationwide poll given to test the hypothesis.
But until then, it is simply racist, xenophobic, and/or any other number of forms of bigotry to assume the way most of you do.
Exactly which of my statements are in disagreement with the Pew Study? It seems as though you didn’t take the time to read the entire study yourself, but rather look at the numbers fed to you by the editorial board. It’s a silly way to argue statistics.But maybe not all of us were fortunate enough to have paid a little attention in their Elementary Statsitics courses.
Wow, I’m terribly sorry, I’m incredibly tired, so I must have mis-read the question in the Pew report. I didn’t catch the word “civilian” in the question. Disregard…
I’m sorry, I don’t buy into the justifications being given above. Women are sometimes stones, or burned, or killed or mutilated simply for not wearing the veil. In essence adherents of this viewpoint put the value of tradition (that’s all it is) above the value of a human life.
Here is an alternate viewpoint…I’m quoting
“There was no specific dress code during the period of Prophet of Islam (PBUH). The founder of Islam (PBUH) never required Muslim women to cover themselves up in an Afghan or Saudi style head-to-toe burqa or any of the burqa’s cousins. From the 632AD to 661 AD, Islam spread to Basra, Syria, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Jerusalem, Algeria, Libya, Morroco, Sudan, Cyprus and Tunisia, and still there was no dress code for Muslim women. As Islam spread outside its place of birth, some early Muslims adopted regional practices including veiling. During both the Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties (during this period feudal relations were fully established) , a period of almost 600 years, only a part of Muslim urban classes opted for veiling, seclusion or both, mostly as a status symbol depicting that the women of the family did not need work in order to make both ends meet. All through Islamic history, rural and nomadic Muslim women, a majority among Muslim women, did not take to veiling.
In the mid-1700s, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahab, an Arab theologian, set out to purify Islam in his own colours. His principal thrust was his belief that Muslims had “misunderstood Islam for centuries”. Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahab and Muhammad Ibn Saud agreed to rule by dividing Islamic interpretation and political administration between the two of them, respectively. From then on, Saudi Arabia’s political rulers have been from House of Ibn Saud while the Grand Mufties (religious clerics which has the right to interpret the religion) fro the House of Ibn Wahab.
Saudi rulers and Grand Muftis have spent billions of dollars to spread the teachings of Ibn Wahab in Muslim societies (that includes severe discrimination of women in education, employment and the justice system). Saudi women are not allowed to drive and religious police enforce a strict code of dress—face veil, headscarf and full black cloak. All customs, nothing to do with religion.
By the second half of the nineteenth century, some Muslim intellectuals argued that interpretations of the Quran in regards to polygamy and wearing the veil had nothing to do with Islam. In 1923 Turkish intellectuals began to denounce the veil. The same year, there was public unveiling in Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia. Reza Pahlvi issued a proclamation (Iran 1925-1941) banning the veil. On November 3, 2006, the Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court banned women lawyers from wearing the veil.
The veil was not an issue in the 60s and 70s but become one in 80s and 90s. The question of the veil has come back with the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, which is a reactionary phenomenon. It is still the case that a majority of 700 million Muslim women do not wear a full-face veil.Are women free to choose?
Muslim women in many Muslim societies are not free to make a choice to wear or not wear the veil. The majority of veil-wearing women in Pakistan do not make a decision to wear the veil. On the contrary their male family members make decisions in this regard. In conservative families, girls start to wear the veil from a very young age as tradition and custom. Even small girls of 6 or 7 years old start to wear the veil, and this is decided by the family, and not by the girl. Women are forced to wear veil on the basis of religion, tradition and custom of the family. For many women, the veil is a precondition to allow them to go out of the home. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and some other countries, state laws force women to wear a specific dress. It is not a choice but a compulsion. In many areas, it is not a state law but local religious clerics force women to wear the veil. For them, every woman without a veil or burqa is not modest and is like a prostitute. They regard the veil as a sign of modesty, honour and nobility of the family. So women are not free to make a choice. This discussion is between men on what a woman should wear and what they should not wear. Both male politicians and religious clerics are men dictating to women.Is it the key issue faced by women?
The media, politicians and religious leaders try to give the impression that it is the key issue faced by women. There are millions of women in the Muslim societies around the world, who cannot cover their bodies because of poverty and hunger. Millions of women are living in abject poverty, hunger, exploitation and repression because of the rotten and reactionary capitalist and feudal system. The key issue for these women is not the veil but to get rid of this exploitation and horrific conditions. This issue like some others is an effort by the right wing ruling class and religious right to divert the attention of the masses from the real issues. The issues like domestic violence, social, political and economic discrimination, unemployment, poverty, hunger, education, health and gender discrimination are the main problems faced by the both veiled and non veiled poor working class women. On the one hand poor women face capitalist exploitation and on the other, the feudal and tribal culture, traditions and customs are making their lives miserable. The main issue is to fight against these horrific conditions to change them.”
How many males are stoned and beaten in ‘honor killings’?
Jed, Capn:
RE: Hiroshima/Dresden/”shock & awe”
You point is valid, but I think there is a distinction. The difference is in the targeting.
Yes, war is hell. It should be. It makes war something to be avoided. And civilians get killed.
But terrorism seeks to TARGET civilians, specifically because they are civilians. Their attacks have little if any military value, in terms of impacting an enemy’s military capacity. And at this point in history, no one really thinks that attacking civilians will destroy an enemy’s morale or will to fight; history teaches just the opposite.
Dresden, Hiroshima were horrible losses of life, with massive civilian casualties. It’s difficult to defend those attacks from our perspective here, with 20/20 hindsight and the perspective of 60 years between us and those attacks (especially the Dresden fire-bombing, which had little military value). Just remember that the atomic bombs probably saved 100,000 or more American lives in making an invasion of Japan unnecessary. In that sense, there was a military purpose.
The “shock & awe” was notable for the LACK of civilian casualties; these were very targeted attacks. Yes, I don’t doubt that civilians got killed, and that is indeed unfortunate. But the attacks were directed at clearly military targets, mostly command and control centers. Note that Saddam placed those centers where they were BECAUSE they were in civilian population centers, using his own population as shields. And they were far more precise than any similar attacks in past conflicts; accomplishing the same type of goal circa 1944, for example, would have resulted in FAR more civilian casualties.
In any case, any guilt we may carry from the atomic bomb attacks (and I don’t think we need carry any) is irrelevent to dealing with terrorism today. Deal in the present, not the past.
I’ll still stand by my statement. And while the US, in the conduct of military operations, has killed civilians, sometimes horribly and unnecessarily, we have rarely if ever specifically targeted civilians BECAUSE they were civilians.
And that’s the difference.
“…, we have rarely if ever specifically targeted civilians BECAUSE they were civilians.
And that’s the difference.”———-
That’s very true, and there is another difference. In our battles, although we know children have regretfully died, our ultimate purpose has been to offer freedom to the masses.
The goal of the terrorists (Muslim ones anyway,) is subordination and imprisonment of those masses.
Life is simply NOT valued as high with these folks. I know some will disagree, but that’s the bottom line here.
When you compare a mother who encourages her teen to strap on a bomb and send himself (and others) to Allah - against an American mother who knows her son is going to war - but PLEADS with him to come home safely….the different value placed on life - speaks volumes.
For those who willing sacrifice their own children (a throwback to ancient ritual appeasement of the gods,) the value of another’s life holds little or no significance.
They WILL progress - they are about 500 years behind Christianity, but we have to live with them NOW. And that means a war of cultures.
Teach them surely. Educate them, help them along - but under NO circumstances should we allow the liberal mindset to capitulate to their anti-progressive, anti-freedom agenda, just because it is politically correct to do so.
So, the Israelis do terrorize the Palestinians and Lebanese.
You make the case that the Israelis started terrorism { but not between the present day ruling class and the working class in Israel }.
You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
The goal should be to see both Israelis and Arabs live in peace, and each deal with their radical elements.
Those who say that that can’t work, really don’t want it to work.
GMC and GSheridan–
Okay, thanks for that explanation.
I understand the conservative mindset better now.
What you are saying in essence is “it is justifiable when we do it, and it is unjustifiable when they do it.”
The fact is that killing civilians is ALWAYS justifiable to the people who do it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it.
The lesson to take away from this is that violence doesn’t really work to end violence.
What we need is to create a culture of peace and conflict resolution that eliminates the underlying sources of violence.
It’s not as much fun as the “boot up your ass” approach of Commander Cod-Piece, but it’s the only one with a chance for success.
“…..the Israelis started terrorism { but not between the present day ruling class and the working class in Israel }.”—————
No, the United Nations started the terrorism in 1948, labeled it “Israel” and it became a perpetual war.
But that was then - this is now.
Now, almost 7 million INNOCENT people live there. People who are at the top of their game in medical research, human rights for citizens, technological advancements, and other scientific achievements.
7 million HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE people.
Since 1949 - there have been problems with the Arabs who were displaced - and those who were not.
If the Palis will QUIT the suicide bombings and rocket attacks - the violence will end.
No - they are NOT going to get back all of the pre-1967 land.
So what?
When a nation conquers another - they can take the land.
How do you think most nations are formed, after all?
Israel, whether you like it or not - is here to stay. They have made some land concessions in the past five years, and may make more - but the Palis MUST knock it off.
We will NEVER support the terrorists over our ally.
Israel has EVERY right to bomb the living daylights out of those who threated her borders.
“I understand the conservative mindset better now.
What you are saying in essence is “it is justifiable when we do it, and it is unjustifiable when they do it.”"——————-
So much for you understanding it.
…shrug…
“The lesson to take away from this is that violence doesn’t really work to end violence.”——————–\
Did, or did NOT, the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively END the Japanese aggression?
And where are they (mentally) today?
Our allies and partners in world commerce.
Why does our Department of State list Israel on “tier 2 of slave-trading?”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3225396,00.html
I love this survey. A survey ABOUT muslims, DIRECTED at muslims. This is about the stupidist thing I’v read.
This makes about as much sense as an old girlfriend while in college did a thesis on law enforcement and went an did a survey of criminals in jail to ask what they thought of the police.
How about I start a survey here.
How many of you bloggers think that anyone who comments on WEBlog are radical right and left wing fanatics, and should be rounded up and thrown in jail?
Gene–
You were born too late, man.
70 years ago, you could have gone to Italy or Germany, put on an armband and rounded people up to your heart’s content.
Heck, you could have even shot a few without trial if you wanted to.
Those were the days, eh, Gene-o?
GS asks, “Did, or did NOT, the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively END the Japanese aggression?
And where are they (mentally) today?
Our allies and partners in world commerce.”
So you’re saying when we kill civilians for our ends, it’s justified. And when “terrorists” kill Americans for their ends, it’s not justified.
Right.
That’s exactly what I said you said.
By the way, the main reason that Al Qaeda attacked the US in 1993 and continued until 9-11, 2001 was to force American troops out of Saudi Arabia.
They succeeded. Bush quietly pulled the troops out, not that you’d ever know it from reading The Eagle or listening to Fux News.
Since they acheived their goals–like we acheived our goals in Japan–the bombings were justified according to your logic.
Capn - seriously, I don’t know whether to just ignore you - as you practice intellectual dishonesty - or pity you.
We have been VERY clear as to our thoughts and you continue to spin and dodge.
And for what purpose? Do you think that suddenly we are going to see our logic in the ‘light’ you cast - just because you say so?
Do you think you can somehow coerce us by offering up childish reasoning?
Really - I want to know. What makes you throw out strawmen in a discussion like this?
Maybe you just don’t want to debate?
What?
Capn:
I don’t often frankly agree with GS, but - You missed the point. Perhaps purposely.
No, America is not blameless. No one claims so. But there is a world of difference between warfare, where civilians unfortunately die (it has always been so), and strapping bombs on children in order to TARGET civilian women and children in non-combat areas.
If you do not understand the difference, perhaps you deserve the “blame America first” label.
Hmmmmmmm…….. I do not wish to sound as if I am defending terrorists, although there are those that will say that anyway, but I have yet to read of a suicide bomber that was a child. I have also not read of a suicide bomber that targeted strictly women and children.
From what I have gathered, most bombers are young Muslim/Arab men, with a few women here or there. In Iraq, they target police stations, public markets and recruiting centers. In Israel, they look to hit areas with the greatest number of people.
Again, I am not defending them, but to suggest that they use children as suicide bombers is wrong, as is stating that they “target” women and children.
Civilians are killed by terrorists, just as they are killed by bombs and mortars.
War sucks. That is why we should look to peaceful solutions before we engage in warfare.
And don’t bother with the 9/11 comparisons. Neither Iraq nor the Palestinians had anything to do with it.
If you want to talk about 9/11, look to Pakistan.
WS
“…as is stating that they “target” women and children.”
That’s exactly what they do, WS. It’s not the only tactic, of course, but it’s a primary one.
And yes, war sucks.
BFAH paraphrased William Tecumseh Sherman above about the goal of modern war. I think General Patton said the same thing only a little differently:
“the object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor b*stard die for his”.-General Patton
Dan Simmons wrote a short story that I highly recommend. In the Time Traveler, Simmons also describes the object of war. A piece is shown below.
“The Time Traveler shook his head. “You’ve understood nothing I’ve said. Nothing. Athens failed in Syracuse – and doomed their democracy – not because they fought in the wrong place and at the wrong time, but because they weren’t ruthless enough.”
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
In Iraq, I beleive we have attempted to be too “noble” to minimize civilian and also military casualties. Though the intent was good, the results are an extended war which cannot be won unless we decide to fight a full-scale war.
Dad used to say you never send a boy to do a man’s job. Well, you never send 1/2 and Army when you need a full Army, and you don’t tie one hand of each soldier behind their back and expect them to win the war.
All’s fair in love and war? As terrible as war is, I think this statement is true. If you don’t completely destroy the enemy - the enemy will never be defeated and the war will never be won.
Civilian casualties will always be a part of any war, whether they are directly targeted or not. Don’t know why that is a surprise to anyone.
Thus the Iraq war will either go on 1/2 “A” for years, or we admit defeat and surrendor and pull-out, or we go full scale and get it over with as rapidly as possible.
GMC,”I’ll still stand by my statement. And while the US, in the conduct of military operations, has killed civilians, sometimes horribly and unnecessarily, we have rarely if ever specifically targeted civilians BECAUSE they were civilians.
And that’s the difference.”
So, if our so-called intelligence thinks there are insurgents in an apartment in a building full of civilians, it’s just their bad luck when we choose to bomb the building? And when we find that our intelligence wasn’t? I stand by my statement too, it makes no difference to the dead whether they were targeted, or for what reason. They’re just as dead.