Young US Muslims endorse suicide bombings

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Young US Muslims endorse suicide bombings

ONE in four young American Muslims thinks suicide bombing of civilians is justified to defend their religion, at least sometimes, according to a new report.

Young US Muslims endorse suicide bombings - National - theage.com.au

Got to love that religion of peace.

 

[Kasmos]

Oh god... here we go again...

"Of Americans under 30, 2 per cent said suicide bombing of civilians could often be justified, 13 per cent said sometimes, and 11 per cent said rarely."

So what if they think suicide bombing is ok to defend their religion? They are not saying they agreed with 9/11, support suicide bombings of AMERICANS over in Iraq, or even that they would ever consider suicide bombings acceptable in the U.S. itself. So I really don't understand the point you guys are trying to convey?

Muslims (since they believe in self-sacrifice), will use suicide bombing as a way to "protect" their religion. American Christians on the other hand, use guns, tanks, vehicles, artillery, planes, naval carriers, long range missiles, etc., to protect their "freedom" and (even though not directly stated) their religion.

What is the difference here? Is suicide bombing more "cowardly" then carpet bombing a city? How is one way to protect your religion any better or worse then another way? This poll is stupid because it simply states that 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing, not 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing the U.S. and terrorism....

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh god... here we go again...

"Of Americans under 30, 2 per cent said suicide bombing of civilians could often be justified, 13 per cent said sometimes, and 11 per cent said rarely."

So what if they think suicide bombing is ok to defend their religion? They are not saying they agreed with 9/11, support suicide bombings of AMERICANS over in Iraq, or even that they would ever consider suicide bombings acceptable in the U.S. itself. So I really don't understand the point you guys are trying to convey?

Muslims (since they believe in self-sacrifice), will use suicide bombing as a way to "protect" their religion. American Christians on the other hand, use guns, tanks, vehicles, artillery, planes, naval carriers, long range missiles, etc., to protect their "freedom" and (even though not directly stated) their religion.

What is the difference here? Is suicide bombing more "cowardly" then carpet bombing a city? How is one way to protect your religion any better or worse then another way? This poll is stupid because it simply states that 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing, not 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing the U.S. and terrorism....

Umm buddy the survey showed that 26% of U.S. muslims support murdering civilians for Islam I don't give a **** which civilians they agree with murdering.

 

[Kasmos]

How many civilians were murdered during the crusades, huh? How many wars were started over Christianity, or Judaism, or most other religions, in which countless civilians were brutally murdered. There is no difference here! It's simply prejudice against the Muslim faith based off the extremists that caused 9/11.

Have your prejudices, have your hatred for the Muslim population, but don't try to say their religion is "evil" because they agree with killing civilians. Just take a look at ours and every other country's history....

 

[Stace]

Umm buddy the survey showed that 26% of U.S. muslims support murdering civilians for Islam I don't give a **** which civilians they agree with murdering.

Ummm I suggest you reread your article. The only statistic that has 26% is this:

The survey found that only 26 per cent believe the war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism

 

[Thelost1]

Actually, Kasmos made a pretty good point. I bet that Christians would say that it was ok to defend their religion by killing. Just not by using suicide bombers.

Crap, i got Ninja'd. I'm reponding to post 3 here.

 

[1069]

Oh god... here we go again...

"Of Americans under 30, 2 per cent said suicide bombing of civilians could often be justified, 13 per cent said sometimes, and 11 per cent said rarely."

If you polled young American non-Muslims, I've no doubt the numbers would be similar.

 

[Kasmos]

If you polled young American non-Muslims, I've no doubt the numbers would be similar.

Not necessarily, I am not going to sit here and say most other people of a different faith will agree with "suicide bombing" per se, but they sure as hell would agree with "killing those" that got in the way of their religious existence, even if they were civilians.

 

[Kasmos]

Trajan... I'm waiting for a response? I posted a reasonable question and I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ummm I suggest you reread your article. The only statistic that has 26% is this:

2% + 11% + 13% = 26% or 1 in 4, you need to read the article.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How many civilians were murdered during the crusades, huh? How many wars were started over Christianity, or Judaism, or most other religions, in which countless civilians were brutally murdered. There is no difference here! It's simply prejudice against the Muslim faith based off the extremists that caused 9/11.

A) The crusades were retaliatory in nature it was the Muslims that first invaded Christian lands all the way up to Spain.

B) The crusades were 500 years ago.

Have your prejudices, have your hatred for the Muslim population, but don't try to say their religion is "evil" because they agree with killing civilians. Just take a look at ours and every other country's history....

Anyone who supports murdering civilians is evil I don't give a damn if their Muslim or not but according to the PEW survey a large % of the U.S. muslim population IS evil.

 

[1069]

Anyone who supports murdering civilians is evil I don't give a damn if their Muslim or not

The US murders civilians.
We call it "collateral damage".

Sometimes, we specifically target civilians.
Ever heard of Dresden?
How about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The US murders civilians.
We call it "collateral damage".

Sometimes, we specifically target civilians.
Ever heard of Dresden?
How about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

A) Dresden was a legitimate military target it was the 7th largest industrial center of the Reich and it's rail lines (which is what we targeted) were being used to reinforce the Germans on the Eastern front.

B) The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives considering that 100,000 Japanese died in the battle of Okinawa alone and both cities were important military industrial centers contributing to the Japanese war effort and Hiroshima was the home to Japans 2nd army they were legitimate military targets.

C) Both Germany and Japan were fighting a total war in which all of their citizenry including women and children were contributing to the war effort their were no civilians.

 

[Mendacious]

I love whenever someone says something against the religion of perpetual outrage, they bring up the crusades.

I endorse using 8 USC 2 on those that endorse suicide bombings.

 

[jallman]

The conclusion that young US muslims endorse suicide bombing is idiotic and nothing but blatant hysteria. It is such a blatant spin on an ambiguous premise that I am beyond nonplussed that this is even being considered seriously.

Let me ask a question: Do you support western civilization?

 

[Mendacious]

The conclusion that young US muslims endorse suicide bombing is idiotic and nothing but blatant hysteria. It is such a blatant spin on an ambiguous premise that I am beyond nonplussed that this is even being considered seriously.

Let me ask a question: Do you support western civilization?

If that is directed at me, then yes.

It seems the tenets of the religion of perpetual outrage want to set the world back into the 13th century.

And they can have if they desire.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The conclusion that young US muslims endorse suicide bombing is idiotic and nothing but blatant hysteria. It is such a blatant spin on an ambiguous premise that I am beyond nonplussed that this is even being considered seriously.

Let me ask a question: Do you support western civilization?

So do you challenge the veracity of the PEW report which proves that 26% of the U.S. muslim population supports murdering civilians for the sake of Islam?

 

[jallman]

If that is directed at me, then yes.

It seems the tenets of the religion of perpetual outrage want to set the world back into the 13th century.

And they can have if they desire.

Okay, so you support western civilization. And no, it was not directed at you in particular, but to the whole hysterical clique that is using this flawed conclusion to justify a growing, determined, and frightening anti-muslim voice in a society that prides itself on freedom of religion.

However, since you answered first, I will address you as you seem more intent on honest discussion anyway.

One could easily apply the same "logic" to your answer and extrapolate that since you support western society and, by association Christianity, that you must also think that there is a sometimes, rarely, or definite justification for the rounding up of indigenous peoples, uneven warfare with undeveloped cultures, the dropping of nuclear weapons on Asian countries, warfare in the name of religion, accepting welcome as a god of less advanced cultures, and the execution of all but one woman in villages in the name of fighting witches.

All of which have happened in the pursuit of western expansion, protection, solidification of boundaries, etc.

However, I hardly think that you would be supportive of any one of these situations taken at face value. That is my problem with this conclusion and the entire premise of the poll altogether.

 

[jallman]

So do you challenge the veracity of the PEW report which proves that 26% of the U.S. muslim population supports murdering civilians for the sake of Islam?

I don't challenge their numbers but I do challenge the dishonest conclusion that is being hysterically peddled.

 

[1069]

So do you challenge the veracity of the PEW report which proves that 26% of the U.S. muslim population supports murdering civilians for the sake of Islam?

Most of them said it was justified "very rarely", and I'm sure that most non-Muslims would respond the same way.
Honest, thinking people often take questions like "Do you think bombing civilians is ever justified?" very seriously, and consider every angle and every possible far-fetched scenario, and respond in the affirmative, with a qualifier (ie, "Rarely", "Seldom", "Almost never").

If "Almost never" had been one of the poll options, I'm sure the number of respondents who "supported murdering civilians" (in your view) would have gone up to 50% or more... and I'm sure that would hold true whether Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Atheists were being polled.

 

[bhkad]

Oh god... here we go again...

"Of Americans under 30, 2 per cent said suicide bombing of civilians could often be justified, 13 per cent said sometimes, and 11 per cent said rarely."

So what if they think suicide bombing is ok to defend their religion? They are not saying they agreed with 9/11, support suicide bombings of AMERICANS over in Iraq, or even that they would ever consider suicide bombings acceptable in the U.S. itself. So I really don't understand the point you guys are trying to convey?

Muslims (since they believe in self-sacrifice), will use suicide bombing as a way to "protect" their religion. American Christians on the other hand, use guns, tanks, vehicles, artillery, planes, naval carriers, long range missiles, etc., to protect their "freedom" and (even though not directly stated) their religion.

What is the difference here? Is suicide bombing more "cowardly" then carpet bombing a city? How is one way to protect your religion any better or worse then another way? This poll is stupid because it simply states that 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing, not 2% of Muslim Americans under 30 agree with suiciding bombing the U.S. and terrorism....

So what??? :doh

When you and your conscious and unconscious brethren talk about the U.S. "CREATING NEW TERRORISTS" in Iraq, what you fail to recognize is that someone doesn't likely go from being a non-violent or moderate Muslim to being a terrorist just like that. They must first believe in the ideology of jihad.

Thus primed with the belief it is then that they are ready to be ignited. The terrorists fighting in Iraq were like bombs sitting on racks waiting to go off. We didn't create those bombs and the majority of the Iraqi people are not terrorists and no matter what we do to try to quell violence and restore order the majority of Iraqis will remain non-violent.

But these jihadist human time bombs are made to be exploded and they go to the first opportunity they can to fulfill their duty.

The people in this survey of U.S. Muslims who admit to being jihadists (they believe violent jihad can be justified) are human time bombs that are primed and ready to explode in the U.S.A.

That IS a big deal.

Let's send a hundred thousand special forces and CIA agents to Iran to blend in and be primed and ready to defend America when given the right signal.

Are you that blind or are your loyalties to something other than this country and our Constitution? :shock:

 

[jallman]

Most of them said it was justified "very rarely", and I'm sure that most non-Muslims would respond the same way.
Honest, thinking people often take questions like "Do you think bombing civilians is ever justified?" very seriously, and consider every angle and every possible far-fetched scenario, and respond in the affirmative, with a qualifier (ie, "Rarely", "Seldom", "Almost never").

If "Almost never" had been one of the poll options, I'm sure the number of respondents who "supported murdering civilians" (in your view) would have gone up to 50% or more... and I'm sure that would hold true whether Muslims, Christians, Jews, or Atheists were being polled.

Oh I know that most non-muslims would feel the same way in the most far fetched scenario like...say...an extended and costly ground war with Japan that resulted in the best decision being to drop two atomic bombs on huge cities. :roll:

Not to mention part of that decision was to fulfill a desire to make a decisive display of US power to deter any incursions by the Soviet reds.

 

[dragonslayer]

Got to love that religion of peace.

Defending. was the word.

why don't we stop attacking and they won't ever have to back up their beliefs.

 

[bhkad]

Defending. was the word.

why don't we stop attacking and they won't ever have to back up their beliefs.

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth”

--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998

Don't pretend you didn't know this. :roll:

 

[jallman]

Don't pretend you didn't know this. :roll:

And that differs from the Moral Majority or the Religious Right's directives how?