Why is sympathy for Islam so common on the political left?

450/1,600,000,000=

0.000028125% of Muslims

 

450/452 = 99.557522123 % of suicide attacks committed by Muslims

And if you think that only 0.000028125% of Muslims think that suicide attacks against civilians "to defend Islam" can be justified, I recommend you re-read the Pew poll and re-watch Ben Shapiro's video clip.

 

You need to read more carefully. I never said this. In fact, what I wrote cannot be much clearer:

So, the poll. . . . Guess it depends what "defend Islam from its enemies" means.

First of all, it's "defending." Second of all, it's against "enemies." I don't know much more about the poll than that.

America is not a religion, but I do know many Americans think killing civilians is justified to defend America from its enemies. Do you?

 

What is your point? That you can do simple math? Or suicide bombers are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of numbers?

I dont get the point of your statistic.

 

You did get it!

 

Defend does not equal attack.

so you are trying to outsmart others lol
If you like no. Take this
99.9% Jews killed by Germans. 99% Namibians. Significant # of polish ,99% of your responds end up with :idiots
All attacks by terror from radicals is less than .01% of what you have committed .
despite that I guess you are looking for this answer

:heil ATW ,you are right. Let's start a new genocide

 

Use your words.
You can do it.
I won't hurt you.

 

You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you.

 

I don't know, but I'm clearly sharper than you.

So, you've given up defending your poll. . . .

Now, remember when I asked you if you think killing civilians is justified in order to defend America from its enemies? What's your answer?

 

You should probably join FranchiseBlade in his quest to determine which Armenian or Greek person is about to blow himself up next.

My answer is that the Noam Chomsky argument does not hold water. A terrorist suicide bombing is designed to kill civilians. America tries - unfortunately not always successfully - to be as precise as possible in taking out enemies who are at war with the USA.

Are mistakes made in the process, and are there transgressions? Unfortunately yes.

Is there a moral equivalence to terrorists? No.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to defend here? The poll question explicitly asks if killing CIVILIANS is justified to defend Islam. That is morally reprehensible no matter what the cause is.

 

I'm not talking about FranchiseBlade or "Noah" Chomsky.

Did you answer my question? No.

For the third time: Do you think killing civilians is justified in order to defend America from its enemies?

 

I've posted similar statistics about terrorism being one of the least likely things to kill you as well as daily murder and rape stats.

1,800 people a day are murdered. Over 1,400 a day are raped. Many of these atrocities are not reported to our media, nor do they have anything to do with Islam or radical religious fanatics from any belief system.

That said, statistics like the one you posted and the one I posted don't take into account things like economic effects or those who are attacked overall perception. I've no doubt radical terrorism costs billions if not hundreds of billions in damages annually, that repairing a city that's been ravaged by attacks can take years to restore itself to normal and again that perception among people that live in that climate is heightened and defensive. Even if the number of attacks is small and does not make up the majority of Muslims, terrorism still has an enormous negative impact that should be remedied. I don't necessarily agree with our current methodology of combatting it but then again I can't exactly offer any reasonable solutions.

 

No...

It's really not that difficult to answer.

 

Do you understand the difference between targeting civilians and targeting terrorists in order to stop them from killing more of your own people?

Suicide bombers target civilians.

If you spot a terrorist like Bin Laden and the only way to kill him (and possibly prevent him from inciting thousands or millions more murders) is to at the same time take out people around him who might be civilians - then you have a moral dilemma. I don't want to have to make that decision, ever. If I had to, I would say no. But even if you decide that accepting the risk of killing civilians in a strike is outweighed by the lives of others saved through taking out the terrorist target - there is no moral equivalence. You are not targeting civilians.

Since you seem to lack the basic intelligence to understand the distinction, I will leave it at that, kid.

 

Some people are born into cultures and religious they didn't necessarily choose. They have an obligation to follow it or be condemned by their own family and or community.

 

I find your statistic amusingly misleading. What percent of those 452 suicide bombers do you think were takfiris? I'd be willing to guess that the vast majority of them are takfiris and that the majority of them are Iraqi or Syrian takfiris.

Obviously no aspect of Islam could have played a part if that were true.

 

I was asking ATW, and I do continue to hope HE will respond.

You see, ATW has this poll that asked a bunch of Muslims a similar question, and he likes this poll very much.

I know there are posters on this board who have said it is acceptable to kill ten civilians to kill one terrorist. I also know that in WW2 we killed tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian populations on purpose (e.g. Dresden). I believe a significant number of Americans accept civilians killings done by the United States, which is demonstrated by the fact that we do them everyday and both you and I don't do **** about it, basically.

I cannot say "no" absolutely to the question of killing civilians in order to defend America from enemies. I would say "rarely."