Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!!! Check out this poll on American Muslims!!!

[ShadeHonestus]

I would like to make the point that "civilian targets" covers a ton of ground in either direction. Is it infrastructure for their military, is it an apartment building with rocket batteries parked around it? Is it specifically for the purpose of killing civilians to inflict terror or submission? Is it to destroy potential voters? Is it to destroy a symbol of the enemy? While the common denominator is the opportunity for civilian casualites, they are, quite different things.

[Don Corleone]

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

[Don Corleone]

In addition to young Muslims' attitudes towards homicide bombings, the study found that only 40 percent of U.S. Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Another 28 percent said they don't believe it.

Your post is amazing, PJ. I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but according to a CNN poll last summer, 35% of Americans at large believe that the US government perpetrated 9/11 on us. That means that on average, muslim Americans actually have MORE faith in the US government than the average citizen.

I'm not surprised though. Go read DailyKos and the like. You'll see that Al-Queda has a 'strongly support' approval rating far, far in excess of 5%. I was actually surprised that for Muslim Americans, the number for strongly support and somewhat support, combined, only came out to 5%. I don't think you could find numbers that low at a university campus anywhere in the country.

[Ser Clegane]

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

Just for clarification - this is not the type of attack on civilian targets I was aiming at with my hypothetical poll question.
In such a case the correct question would be:

"Can the bombing of civilian targets be justified in the defense of your life and the lives of your family?"

(which would add another dimension to the issue)

This is why I chose "freedom" as a "value" to defend which would be more comparable to defending "Islam" as in the original poll question IMO.

[Watchman]

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

That's a darn cold comfort for the school that just got reduced to a smoking pile of rubble.

Or anyone in there besides the gunmen for that matter.

Did you ever incidentally think that the gunmen might be doing that taking fully into account the Israelis' infamously cavalier attitude about civilian casualties, since every dead bystander is a reason for someone else (typically a relative) to have a grudge on Israel ?

[FactionHeir]

Three out of four people surveyed said the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, and 48 percent said using force in Afghanistan was wrong. Five percent of those surveyed had a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view of Al Qaeda, while 58 percent had a "very unfavorable" opinion of the terror group.

Thats a rather flawed question. Why would anyone say "The invasion of my country was good, kill all my neighbors and friends and their friends."
While Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist group by most western countries, its also notable that at the same time the US actively supports islamic militants and terror groups in Iraq as long as they fight against Al Qaeda or anti-American groups. Strategically a sound idea. Ideologically and morally a step backwards if you are actively pursuing a "war on terror". That's like saying if you are a terrorist you are fine as long as you don't mess with the US and Israel.

Note that many of the islamic militant groups that end up labelled as terrorist due to their way of fighting were only created or became active after the invasion of Iraq to drive out what they deem occupiers, which is totally understandable. I mean if all Muslim countries united and invaded and occupied the States, how many Americans would take up arms and fight back? Possibly even with suicide bombings if they did not have enough funds/training? That needs to be put in perspective.

That said, its common knowledge now that there was no legal reason to invade Iraq and that it has brought nothing but strife and has not made the world a better nor safer place. Some may argue bringing democracy there justifies the war, but I ask what this fuss about democracy is about anyway. Why impose a system of government on a country's people just because you think they'd be better off that way? Some systems work better in certain countries than others. One does not have to wonder why this anti-bushism has popped up all around this country.

[Proletariat]

While not encouraging, this doesn't really bother me. How many suicide bombings have happened in the American cities you guys live in?

If we were tracking money being sent from US Muslims to actually 'support' these bombings, then yeah, I'd be worried. But any idiot can say whatever they want to a pollster.

[FactionHeir]

Here's the other problem. Knowing our hesitancy regarding collateral damage, Hezbollah and Hamas frequently launch their attacks from civilian targets.

I'm sorry, if Hezbollah is launching rockets out of a Lebanese school at an Israeli school, the Israelis have a right to see to it that it stops.

I think the qualifier here would be that the Hezbollah gunmen are the target, not the school (they just happen to occupy the same space).

While you do have a point there, one also has to ask from where else they are supposed to launch their attacks (under the assumption that they have to of course)? Stand around in an open field waving a rocket? The problem is that Hezbollah isn't a standing regular army like the IDF is and thus has limits on what it can and cannot do. I think if the roles were reversed, either side would use the tactics of the other.

Now, while hiding in populous civilian targets certain isn't all that nice, was Israel's use of cluster bombs (which are banned and condemned) in Lebanon justified? If they really just wanted to target the militants, wouldn't a homing missile be good enough? Why bomb a highly populated civilian area with cluster bombs? Really gotta wonder if there isn't some intent on killing civilians there.

[Don Corleone]

That's a darn cold comfort for the school that just got reduced to a smoking pile of rubble.

Or anyone in there besides the gunmen for that matter.

Did you ever incidentally think that the gunmen might be doing that taking fully into account the Israelis' infamously cavalier attitude about civilian casualties, since every dead bystander is a reason for someone else (typically a relative) to have a grudge on Israel ?

And did you ever think that the reason the Israelis are willing to make that hard choice is because they realize it's the only way to make Hizbollah stop using civilian bases?

I'm sorry, if Hizbollah is firing from a civilian building, they shouldn't get a free pass. As I said earlier, I really and truly feel bad for the Palestinians. But their biggest problem is not Israel, it's leaders that willingly sign them up to be human shields.

[Don Corleone]

While you do have a point there, one also has to ask from where else they are supposed to launch their attacks (under the assumption that they have to of course)? Stand around in an open field waving a rocket? The problem is that Hezbollah isn't a standing regular army like the IDF is and thus has limits on what it can and cannot do. I think if the roles were reversed, either side would use the tactics of the other.

Now, while hiding in populous civilian targets certain isn't all that nice, was Israel's use of cluster bombs (which are banned and condemned) in Lebanon justified? If they really just wanted to target the militants, wouldn't a homing missile be good enough? Why bomb a highly populated civilian area with cluster bombs? Really gotta wonder if there isn't some intent on killing civilians there.

I agree with you 110%. At a certain point, if your methods are crude and inaccurate enough, all protests to the contrary aside, you must be assumed to be looking for civilian casualties. And if you remember last summer, during the whole mess in Lebanon, that was where I drew the line in my support for Israel, that they weren't taking enough precautions.

That's a different issue, though, isn't it? You're arguing whether or not Israel really is targeting civilians. I'm arguing that if they're after people hiding among the civilians, they have a right to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting study.

Alas, I can't copy and paste from it, and I'm too lazy to type whole statistics myself, so I'll only share some brief thoughts about things that caught my attention.

Native born Afro-american Muslims seem to be the most radical.

On the whole, the survey confirms other studies: US Muslims are better integrated than European ones. I think it is connected to 71% of American Muslims seeing hard work leading to succes.

There seems to be a radicalisation, see statistics on page 33. 26% of Muslims think they should remain distinct from US society. This ranges from 39% for 18-29 year olds, to 17% for 55+. There is a marked difference between those arrived before and after 1990, 15% and 25% respectively.
Are these differences a sign of gradual acceptance with age and length of residence, or a they signs of radicalisation? I can't tell.

Edit: one last thing. The total number that don't think suicide bombings are never justified, is 13% for US Muslims, and 35% for French Muslims. Lovely.
For Spain and the UK these numbers are twice as high as for Americans.

[ShadeHonestus]

FactionHeir

I really enjoyed your post and you brought up some excellent points. My question is that given their role and if their role is one for the people, would they not wish to limit damage to their people? Being unlike an IDF they have more access to the people, they could evacuate a building from which they wish to initiate hostilities. The people would no doubt cooperate completely and aid in not tipping their move if they had the moral authority to be there and on their behalf to begin with.

[Watchman]

And did you ever think that the reason the Israelis are willing to make that hard choice is because they realize it's the only way to make Hizbollah stop using civilian bases?

I haven't heard of Hezbollah ceasing to use that trick you know. Methinks you have a bit too rosy idea of the way the IDF approaches these things. They used to have what amount to flat out death squads whose whole purpose was "retaliation" with excessive force and extreme prejudice, remember ? And they seem to think that a helo-launched Hellfire into a crowd is a fine way to 'assasinate' an old man in wheelchair...

But their biggest problem is not Israel, it's leaders that willingly sign them up to be human shields.

I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

[Don Corleone]

I haven't heard of Hezbollah ceasing to use that trick you know. Methinks you have a bit too rosy idea of the way the IDF approaches these things. They used to have what amount to flat out death squads whose whole purpose was "retaliation" with excessive force and extreme prejudice, remember ? And they seem to think that a helo-launched Hellfire into a crowd is a fine way to 'assasinate' an old man in wheelchair...
I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

Hmmm. So what you're saying, is that in the interest of protecting Palestinian civilians, who are allowing Hamas and Hizbollah in among them to attack Israel, the Israelis should just let their own civilians die. Interesting position.

And my post has nothing to do with ownership questions. I thought we were talking about a poll question regarding whether the targeting of civilians could be justified? And as for the Jewish state being "Jews Only", you ought to do a quick web search on how many mosques and churches there are in Israel before you put your foot in your mouth.

[Watchman]

Hmmm. So what you're saying, is that in the interest of protecting Palestinian civilians, who are allowing Hamas and Hizbollah in among them to attack Israel, the Israelis should just let their own civilians die.

Actually what I think is they should stop being anally retentive about having their Promised Land and sit down at the negotiation table - properly. Already if they don't want to spend the next hundred years or something at this same crap.

And my post has nothing to do with ownership questions. I thought we were talking about a poll question regarding whether the targeting of civilians could be justified?

The ownership question is the big problem of the Palestinians. Actually, it darn near defines them as a group. The ethically questionable tactics of the militants rather pale in comparision.

And as for the Jewish state being "Jews Only", you ought to do a quick web search on how many mosques and churches there are in Israel before you put your foot in your mouth.

Not really. Theory and practice are famously bad over their difficulties in meeting each other. What the pinko-Zionists would have wanted - and still do - is a "pure" Biblical Israel. For numerous practical reasons - starting with the fact not all Zionists are that hardline, and not all Israelis Zionists, and continuing to entirely pragmatic political and economical questions - what they got in spite of their best efforts rather fell short of that.

Mind you, I don't actually know what the lunatic fringe of the Zionist thinks of Christians. Presumably better than they do of Muslims anyway. An interesting question certainly; wonder where you could find info on it...?

[Boyar Son]

Make a poll asking americans(or indeed any other country) whether it's justified to invade another country and kill people there...

Its called war

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't really see what this has to do with the whole territory-ownership issue which is what the whole conflict is ultimately all about, and where Israel has been the single biggest troublemaker from the start. What with that whole "Biblical Israel" and "Jewish State" (as in, "Jews Only") thing.

I wasn't aware that the "palestinians" as they are known today ever actually had legal ownership over any of that land.

[Boyar Son]

I wasn't aware that the "palestinians" as they are known today ever actually had legal ownership over any of that land.

I read somewhere that Palestine was the modern version of Philistine (wiki I think).

So, Philistine V. Isreal. Palestine V. Isreal now, nothing changed.

[ajaxfetish]

Well, in terms of PJ's approach on legal ownership, the area in modern times has gone from being part of the Ottoman Empire to a British Mandate to a Jewish State, with the indigenous Arabs never having legal political ownership over the land. Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.

As for earlier ownership, it would have originally (in terms of what records we have) been a pagan Canaanite/Philistine area, then a Jewish state, then a province of the Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian/Macedonian Empires, then a semi-autonomous Roman province, then with the fall of Rome a Byzantine province, then part of the Ummah, then it was captured by the Turks, then the Franks, then Saladin and the Ayyubids, then I get a little hazy (Mongols, Mamluks, etc.), and eventually under the auspices of the Ottoman Turks, and on into the present.

Ajax

[PanzerJaeger]

So one could say the Turks have more of a claim over the area than the "palestinians".

It was never theirs.

[Boyar Son]

Well, in terms of PJ's approach on legal ownership, the area in modern times has gone from being part of the Ottoman Empire to a British Mandate to a Jewish State, with the indigenous Arabs never having legal political ownership over the land. Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.


Ajax

Arabs are the people living in suadi arabia, the people living their now are muslims.

Not debating, just annoyingly nit picking........

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets
to Defend Islam be Justified?

No. Can you? Freedom is worth defending with your life for all people with any sense. I doubt you my friend are willing to give your life defending any religion

read somewhere that Palestine was the modern version of Philistine (wiki I think).

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines? It was the name given to Israel after the Romans sent them packing. Instead of the Provence of Judea it was changed to the Provence of Palestine

So, Philistine V. Isreal. Palestine V. Isreal now, nothing changed.

So the Palestinians would have you believe.

Of course, considering they'd lived there for centuries, that doesn't just divest them of all rights of residency or anything.

So if your family rents a house for a few generations its theirs? Few of these people had lived there for centuries and far fewer than that owned any land . Also why should jews be not allowed in Palestine. Because the Romans threw them out? Most arabs migrated there just like the Jews.

[ajaxfetish]

Arabs are the people living in suadi arabia, the people living their now are muslims.

Not debating, just annoyingly nit picking........

Arabs are an ethnic group, and it includes the modern Palestinians, as well as many inhabitants of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and other states on the Arabian peninsula and Northern Africa, not just Saudia Arabia. Most Arabs are Muslim, but others are Christians or Jews, and plenty of Muslims are not Arabic.

So if your family rents a house for a few generations its theirs? Few of these people had lived there for centuries and far fewer than that owned any land . Also why should jews be not allowed in Palestine. Because the Romans threw them out? Most arabs migrated there just like the Jews.

I think duration of residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence. Native American tribes didn't use the kind of property ownership laws we brought from Europe. Does that mean we were entirely justified in pushing them off their ancestral lands because they didn't legally own them anyway? I don't think so.

And where did I argue that Jews should not be allowed in Palestine? My point, if I have one is that the area has been ruled/owned by dozens of groups over its history, each with a greater or lesser claim on it, including both the Jews and the Palestinians (not to mention the Turks, and the British, and the French, and Italy, and Egypt, and Greece, and Mongolia . . . ), which is a big part of what makes the issue so complicated.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This will probably come as a shock to you, but most of us don't actually live in mansions. The newly immigrated especially tend to find themselves in less than fantastic living accomodations. Your co-op apartment in Brighton Beach would probably be a more accurate locale for Yusuf.

That was a jab at the wealthy Americans who supported the IRA.

As regards Palastine, has it occurred to the Isrealis yet that a significant number of the "Palastinians" are actually Jewish converts to Christianity or Islam?

[Boyar Son]

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines?

Both sare the same name and both fight the isreali's. Who knows, their families couldve lived in the same general area for centuries too.

[Watchman]

The Romans threw most of the Jews out of there after they'd had enough of putting down major revolts, I seem to recall. The other peoples inhabiting the region doubtless filled the vacuum happily enough, and went one grumbling about the Romans with the remaining Jews.

And when the Muslim Arabs came and booted Byzantine authority off the place for good, the locals pretty much welcomed them as liberators who neither gave a damn about what exact form of Christianity you practised nor had issues with Jews.

After which the place's still been densely enough inhabited, under varying overlords, quite nonstop all the way to the time the first quasi-Zionists started arriving from "the West" in the late 1800s. I rather imagine all those local people did not suddenly magically disappear into thin air when more Jews and Muslims from elsewhere started moving in (judging already by the little detail the Muslim families Saladin appointed to guard the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are still at the job), and I also rather suspect they were driven away with the rest of the Muslims in '48.

Sure, those Jews who'd dwelt there since equally far back have an equal claim to the land, but not counting those folks I'd rather say the indigenous Muslims had a rather stronger claim in general by the default condition of having factually lived on it for generations.

And if you go far enough back into deep Antiquity, someone (Canaanites I think, and whoever the heck was there before them) had been building cities on those hills a millenia before the Israelites even appear on the historical radar.

As for the ancient Philistines, nobody really knows where that lot came from (somewhere around Anatolia and the Aegean are strong contenders apparently) but after their unsuccesful invasion of Egypt the Pharaoh settled them into what is these days roughly the Ghaza strip coastline. They apparently fade away as a distinct group (presumably becoming mixed with the other peoples inhabiting the same general area) sometime around the Babylonian collapse before the Persians or soon after. The Romans probably found the name in Judaic scriptures.

[ajaxfetish]

Watchman captured a lot of what I was about to say. Basically, there's no connection I'm aware of between ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians, besides whatever genetic material the local gene pool may have assimilated. Modern Palestinians identify themselves primarily with other Arab peoples.

Here's an excerpt from the Palestinian National Charter, borrowed from wiki:

"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father—whether in Palestine or outside it—is also a Palestinian." The Charter also states that "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians."

Ajax

[Slyspy]

It makes me laugh to see people claiming that Ser's question is not equivalent to the question in the poll.

To me it is the same question, it only differs in the ideology to be defended through the targeting of civilians.

I do not believe that anyone actually answered the question.

I would say no.

[ajaxfetish]

It makes me laugh to see people claiming that Ser's question is not equivalent to the question in the poll.

To me it is the same question, it only differs in the ideology to be defended through the targeting of civilians.

I do not believe that anyone actually answered the question.

I would say no.

I would also consider it equivalent, but he phrased it as another poll he would like to see conducted, not as a question for fellow orgahs. Anyhow, I'd be against targetting civilians to defend either Islam or Freedom. Targetting combatants using civilian human shields gets trickier.

Ajax

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think duration of residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence.

But it doesnt. What you think is irrelevant. If I own the land and let you rent it and I sell it to someone else your going to tell them youve been living there for 20 years and aint moving?

residence on a piece of land should have some contribution to ownership or at least rights to continued residence. Native American tribes didn't use the kind of property ownership laws we brought from Europe. Does that mean we were entirely justified in pushing them off their ancestral lands because they didn't legally own them anyway? I don't think so.

The Jews bouth the land from the legitimate owners. Mostlly Turkish absentee lanndlords. They didnt just take it.

the area has been ruled/owned by dozens of groups over its history, each with a greater or lesser claim on it, including both the Jews and the Palestinians

When did the Palestinians rule the region? Never thats when.

As regards Palastine, has it occurred to the Isrealis yet that a significant number of the "Palastinians" are actually Jewish converts to Christianity or Islam?
Today 23:29

Then their not Jews anymore Look this is really whats so funny and sad about this. In actuality their pretty much the same peoples. Their all semites fighting over which relgion is right. The thing is the Jews really dont care. Their religion only wants Israel unlike Christianity and Islam who want the world. They have no wish for everyone to convert to Judiasm. Hell they pride themselves on being the few the proud the jews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And exactly what have the Palestinians as we call them today have to do with the Philistines?



Both sare the same name and both fight the isreali's

Not the same name nor the same peoples. The Philistines were a seafaring people from around Greece somewhere I believe like the Phonicians.

Who knows, their families couldve lived in the same general area for centuries too.

When was the last time a Philistine met a Palestinian ? I dont think they ever have. The philistines were gone before any palestinans existed. Unless you just reffering to people who live in the region as Palestinians.

After which the place's still been densely enough inhabited, under varying overlords, quite nonstop all the way to the time the first quasi-Zionists started arriving from "the West" in the late 1800s

If you call 700.000 people living in that region densly packed The place as a desert and forlorn until jewish immigration stated. It was the Jews who casused all the arbs to migrate there to get a better standard of living. Without the Jews israel would be as bad, no it would be worse9No Oil) than all its poor arab neighbors. The real reason israel is hated is because they have these filthy western ways about them and their not Muslims. Thats it in a nut shell, basicly they have the samething against them as they do us,. Also like us its why their succesful and the arabs are not. Get the hell out of the 17th century.