I have to concur here. I am not one to throw the label of hate crime around lightly. These two men could have been shot for many reasons, and race one of them. But as it goes to some posters on this board, it's clear they have an issue with Islam itself and probably have more in common with the protesters shouting slurs at Muslims.
This is insanity....did you even click the link???? Quote: 52%, not 83%. And you cited one of two countries that it listed as having a positive opinion of OBL, Nigeria being the other with 54%. Since you wont click the link and choose to cite bogus stats, I'll cite them for you: Confidence in OBL: Pakistan - 18% Indonesia - 25% Jordan - 28% Palestine terr. - 52% Israel - 16% Turkey - 2% Lebanon - 4% Egypt - 23% Nigeria - 54% Support for Suicide Bombings: Pakistan - 5% Indonesia - 13% Jordan - 12% Palestine terr. - 68% Israel - 7% Turkey - 4% Lebanon - 38% Egypt - 15% More significant is the fact that all of the above numbers indicate a drastic decline from the same survey conducted back in 2002/2003. Oddly enough, 83% does not appear in the entire link. 1) You are the one constantly bringing up history. Please think about your posting history for a few minutes prior to asking questions. 2) "Even if true" indicates that, for some reason, you doubt what I've quoted. Why? Unlike yourself, I provided multiple citations and links. If you'd like more, I can provide them. 3) No. But that wasnt the point. The point was to refute your argument that Islam teaches Muslims to act in discriminatory ways, which is why majority-Muslim countries discriminate against non-Muslims. Once again, such a claim is not consistent with human history, and you fail to draw any correlation between modern socio-economic-political realities with local legislative practices across the world. 4) finger pointing? You're unbelievable. You specifically pitted the Christian narrative of turning the other cheek against the Muslim one of self-defense, as if to say that Islam is bound to make people more violent in its name. My point was to prove that, in history, blood has been spilt and people have been discriminated against in meaningful ways as a direct result of the Christian religious tradition, and to show that Christians are just as capable of co-opting their religion in ways that are inconsistent with Jesus' message much the same way vigilante, renegade Muslims are with Muhammad's message.
Anyone who thinks that there is ever any justification for suicide bombings against civilians is completely wrong, in my opinion. Do you disagree, vlaurelio?
vaid's 68% Palestine number is head shaking enough... 83% to "and other forms of violence against civilian targets" including those who responded "rarely justified" is stretch. Do you really want to push this for that extra 15%, or can your point be made at 68%?
Agreed. I wonder if there are any polls about Christians and whether a bombing of a mosque (or something else Muslimy) would be justified?
I agree, and am not going to defend 68% because it is extremely problematic. Suicide bombings are wrong at every level and there's no equivocation on that fact. I only made the point to show that he looked at the entire site and focused on one statistic, which in itself was not cited anywhere. 17% were totally opposed, but that didnt mean that 83% were pro. It was also there to show that the sentiments of the Palestinian territories are from from being representative of every Muslim majority nation on earth. In fact, the most populous ones had extremely low percentages of support for suicide bombings and OBL. Palestine is ~4 million people in their territories, which makes up a small fraction of the entire Muslim populace around the world. As for how to reduce that number, thats a discussion I'm more than willing to have. But for ATW to sit back and state (or insinuate) that OBL somehow garners overwhelmelming support across the Muslim world is dishonest.
I never said that OBL garners overwhelming support. Just way too much support, still. And not only OBL, but also other elements of fundamentalist thinking (treatment of women, minorities, cruel punishments, attitude towards non-Muslims, etc.). I would be interested in your take on that.
I'd encourage you to read Robert Papte's article published in Foreign Policy last October entitled, It's the Occupation, Stupid. Pape worked at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, and spent time examining all 2,200 suicide attacks globally from 1980 until now. You can find the detailed report here. A few interesting quotes from the FP piece:
Occupation does not seem to be a plausible excuse for 9/11 and for the bombings in London and Madrid.
Yes it would....just go back and look at it. And by the way, I'm not citing it as an 'excuse' as much as I am a cause. For example, it's plausible to argue that certain policy decisions were correct regardless of the lives lost and terrorism it ends up inciting in its aftermath. Motives for 9/11 OBL in his own words continually cites foreign policy (e.g. UN Sanctions in Iraq, US military presence in Saudi Arabia, Palestine/Israel) as reasons behind his operations. He doesnt say that he does them because the world 'doesnt beleive in Allah' or because he wants them to convert. Once again, I'm not justifying anything he does and am 100% against any violent act, but the motivations behind terrorism show a distinct causal relationship between foreign policy decisions and terrorism. Dont trust me, read Pape's report; I can try to formulate and defend his opinion, but he's the one who spent time going through every suicide attack since 1980. This is also the same reason that I feel a lot of the blame on Salafism is unfounded. At its core, Salafism is an extremely passifist ideology. The foremost Salafi scholars in the world condemned uprisings in Tunis, Egypt, Libya, and around the world. Most have edicts forbidding protests, even in benign formats like petitions. Shaykh Al-Albani, a personality who can probably be described as being the father of Salafism, is well-known for having implored Muslims to leave Palestine and to give the land to the Israeli's in order to keep peace and save lives. Shaykh Bin Baz, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia and one of the most prominent Salafi figures in the past century, was demonstrably critical of OBL, and OBL levied his heaviest criticisms on Shaykh Bin Baz, releasing his first open letter as a criticism of Shaykh Bin Baz's support of the Oslo Accord. Shaykh Bin Baz is also well known for releasing a 'fatwa' (religious edict) allowing the US to use Saudi land for its troops during the Gulf War. I dont consider myself a Salafi (I'm faaar from it lol), but at the same time I recognize that every faith has its neo-conservative elements, and Salafi Muslims are nothing more than neo-conservative Muslims.
I think it's fair to say when Palestinians are talking about suicide bombings they aren't referring to 9/11 but attacks on Israel. people forget the horrid violence that Israel had conducted against Palestinians including murder of children, bulldozing homes with people in them, and other cruel acts that inspire a tremendous amount of anger. It's an ugly situation out there. very ugly. Israel has effectively committed genocide against Palestinians, swallowing up the country by pushing Palestinians into exodus or into defacto ghettos, and have killed thousands upon thousands indiscriminately. Palestinians have committed terrible atrocities as well, but certainly you can't place Israelis as having the higher moral ground here.
You are being deceptive, and intentionally so. You said they share the same ideology. Do you deny it?
Sorry I was going to ignore, but there is too much ignorance to ignore here. 1) Nice job brushing off that decades and decades later, more than 1 in 10 Germans want Hitlermania back. 2) Nice job comparing life-long refugees to Germany and holding them to the same standard. 3) Unsolicited is included to show that you must respect the law. Are you in some warped universe where people should tolerate injustice? 4) Yes salafis. I don't know who on this board is Salafi. I don't keep track of things like that, whereas you seem to be able to recite off the top of your head every Muslim on this board, their denomination, and their nationality. 5) What does what I previously said have to do with this? Are you still reaching for this straw? Do you not care how much of a scumbag you look like for repeating this over and over? 6) There is no disagreement that such actions are not directed from the Quran. Not one person can even argue that it exists in the Quran, anymore than they can argue that it's ok to drink alcohol in the Quran. Almost ALL Muslims would agree that the Quran does not command you to kill people for slandering the Prophet, even those who wanted to execute the Christian woman. It is just simply not in there, neither literally or as a metaphor. 7) Is there something wrong with that choice? The leader of an army can't have a strong sense of morals or ethics? 8) You are right. Incidentally, can you name the attackers of those people? Let's see where they came from and put your "not in some donkey village" to the test.
Fox News, stoking the Islamophobic fire as usual: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/14/fox_nation_pakistan_padded_bras I'm not trying to make a political statement here, just trying to find an appropriate place for this link without creating a new thread. It's amazing what stuff passes as journalism these days.
