Polling indicates unfavorable view of Al Qaeda amongst Muslims

[therealUT]

It absolutely matters. Discounting that with a wave of the hand completely diminishes the rest of your argument. Take a poll right now, or even in WWII about deliberately targeting civilians in a country we were not at war with, only that we had a political beef with, and no way in hell do we get the support we are seeing in these muslim polls. No way.

It is an artificial distinction that matters to a society that has grown up with some legalist sense that in a state of war morality goes out the window. Morality does not go out the window, though; therefore, supporting the targeting of civilians is either immoral or its not. It matters not whether there is a declared state of war.

 

[rjd970]

It is an artificial distinction that matters to a society that has grown up with some legalist sense that in a state of war morality goes out the window. Morality does not go out the window, though; therefore, supporting the targeting of civilians is either immoral or its not. It matters not whether there is a declared state of war.

If this was true then why would we bother with the time and expense to make targeting more precise to prevent collateral damage? Sucide bombers try to create as much collateral damage and kill as many people as possible. That is a fundamental difference here.

There is a real difference of morality at play here that you want to overlook so you feel good about your beliefs with regards to the religion of Islam. Any way you slice those poll numbers, it is disgusting. Justifying with wording, or somehow distantly trying to equate with Dresden is ridiculous.

 

[therealUT]

If this was true then why would we bother with the time and expense to make targeting more precise to prevent collateral damage? Sucide bombers try to create as much collateral damage and kill as many people as possible. That is a fundamental difference here.

I agree that our government and our military have adopted a strategy that serves to avoid and/or limit civilian casualties; I am stating that the outcry from what I would consider to be nearly 1/3 of the populus especially at the beginning of the Iraq War, was for "taking the gloves off" and in doing so bomb more indiscriminately and/or take the fight to the civilians.

As for suicide bombers and collateral damage, on average one suicide bomber does not create the same amount of "collateral damage" that one precisely guided JDAM does. The collateral damage from JDAMs and cluster bombs is avowedly (by US officials) foreseen; yet, they are still used against "military targets". This is why there are hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq.

There is a real difference of morality at play here that you want to overlook so you feel good about your beliefs with regards to the religion of Islam. Any way you slice those poll numbers, it is disgusting. Justifying with wording, or somehow distantly trying to equate with Dresden is ridiculous.

I do not want to equate Islamic terrorism with Dresden; what we did at Dresden was much worse than what any Islamic terrorists have done either to the US, in the Middle East, or in SW Asia.

 

[rjd970]

I agree that our government and our military have adopted a strategy that serves to avoid and/or limit civilian casualties; I am stating that the outcry from what I would consider to be nearly 1/3 of the populus especially at the beginning of the Iraq War, was for "taking the gloves off" and in doing so bomb more indiscriminately and/or take the fight to the civilians.

As for suicide bombers and collateral damage, on average one suicide bomber does not create the same amount of "collateral damage" that one precisely guided JDAM does. The collateral damage from JDAMs and cluster bombs is avowedly (by US officials) foreseen; yet, they are still used against "military targets". This is why there are hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq.



I do not want to equate Islamic terrorism with Dresden; what we did at Dresden was much worse than what any Islamic terrorists have done either to the US, in the Middle East, or in SW Asia.

The point is intent, not results.

Our intent: limit civilian casualities.

Their intent: maximize civilian casualties.

Is it really that hard to believe?

Seriously, you can talk about all this philosophical roundabout justification crap all you want.

We are talking about suicide bombing to target civilians. It should NEVER be justified, under any circumstances. 1/3 of muslim respondents could not say that. You don't find that disturbing?

You can say that is because current day Muslims have the same worldview like Americans did in WWII (which is absurd), or simply accept the fact that the theological particulars that can be justified under their belief system may not be the most benign and is more widespread even in the moderate communities then it should be.

 

[slh1089]

The point is intent, not results.

Our intent: limit civilian casualities.

Their intent: maximize civilian casualties.

Is it really that hard to believe?

Seriously, you can talk about all this philosophical roundabout justification crap all you want.

We are talking about suicide bombing to target civilians. It should NEVER be justified, under any circumstances. 1/3 of muslim respondents could not say that. You don't find that disturbing?

You can say that is because current day Muslims have the same worldview like Americans did in WWII (which is absurd), or simply accept the fact that the theological particulars that can be justified under their belief system may not be the most benign and is more widespread even in the moderate communities then it should be.

Don't waste your time with him on this subject.

 

[therealUT]

The point is intent, not results.

Our intent: limit civilian casualities.

Their intent: maximize civilian casualties.

Is it really that hard to believe?

If the collateral damage is foreseen (which it is) does the fact that you state, "Well, I only intended to take out this one military objective" actually mean that you do not intend to cause the collateral damage, i.e. kill civilians? If I say that I intend to shoot someone with a .50 Cal round and I know that your mother is standing right behind that person, are you going to say that I did not intend to shoot her? Are you going to say that this was just a regrettable, but foreseeable, consequence? This is the problem with the Doctrine of Double Effect. The results are foreseen and the act is carried through; how is intent somehow dismissed?

Seriously, you can talk about all this philosophical roundabout justification crap all you want.

We are talking about suicide bombing to target civilians. It should NEVER be justified, under any circumstances. 1/3 of muslim respondents could not say that. You don't find that disturbing?

I find suicide disturbing in the sense that one is throwing away everything they have; however, I do not find that it adds anything the level of revulsion I have at targeting civilians, period. Yet, justification for targeting civilians (or knowingly killing them as the foreseen consequence of an act) is given just as much in the West as it is in the Arab world.

You can say that is because current day Muslims have the same worldview like Americans did in WWII (which is absurd), or simply accept the fact that the theological particulars that can be justified under their belief system may not be the most benign and is more widespread even in the moderate communities then it should be.

Having read and studied both the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and the Bible and many texts written by Christian 'Doctors', I can say that the same justifications can be made using the Bible and Christianity as can be made using the Islamic texts; moreover, the same justifications have been made and are repeatedly made by Christians throughout the world regarding systemic killing, whether it is under the artifice of "declared war" or not.

 

[rjd970]

If the collateral damage is foreseen (which it is) does the fact that you state, "Well, I only intended to take out this one military objective" actually mean that you do not intend to cause the collateral damage, i.e. kill civilians? If I say that I intend to shoot someone with a .50 Cal round and I know that your mother is standing right behind that person, are you going to say that I did not intend to shoot her? Are you going to say that this was just a regrettable, but foreseeable, consequence? This is the problem with the Doctrine of Double Effect. The results are foreseen and the act is carried through; how is intent somehow dismissed?

This really isn't hard. Once conflict has commenced, one side is doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualities, the other is doing everything in its power to maximize it. Again, that is simply undeniable. Dance around that all you want, it doesn't change anything. Your attempt to justify your position here is both impressive and absurd at the same time.

I find suicide disturbing in the sense that one is throwing away everything they have; however, I do not find that it adds anything the level of revulsion I have at targeting civilians, period. Yet, justification for targeting civilians (or knowingly killing them as the foreseen consequence of an act) is given just as much in the West as it is in the Arab world.

But the suicide component adds to the revulsion of the poll results. One would think killing civilians would be enough to say "never justified", adding in deliberately killing one's self in the process and it should be a no brainer. You don't think the nonsense about paradise for martyr's has anything to do with this?

And again, knowing civilians may get killed in conflict is a given, deliberate targeting of them versus minimizing the chance of killing them is the difference. Keep dancing, I look forward to next philosophical justification.

Having read and studied both the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and the Bible and many texts written by Christian 'Doctors', I can say that the same justifications can be made using the Bible and Christianity as can be made using the Islamic texts; moreover, the same justifications have been made and are repeatedly made by Christians throughout the world regarding systemic killing, whether it is under the artifice of "declared war" or not.

Are christians polling at 30%, in moderate countries? You believe what you want about the Qu'ran and Hadith teachings, not what is reality in the Muslim world. Far be it from me to defend Christianity, but there is definitely a qualitative difference. I'm not for any religion, but Islam is worse than Christianity...Christianity is worse than Amish, Amish is worse than Jainism, etc. All religions are not equally bad in this respect. It just isn't so.

 

[therealUT]

Adding the fact that those who are killing civilians are also committing suicide neither adds nor detracts from the "killing civilians" part. Intent does play a role; I am stating quite clearly that the US intends to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I make this statement on the fact that the civilian casualties are foreseen and the US still opts to strike and kill them. Further, the US is responsible for killing between 101,000 and 341,000 Iraqi civilians between 2003 and 2006. The Iraq War certainly was not a war of self-defense; our involvement was completely voluntary and, further, such high civilian casualty rates were forecasted. Yet, we went and caused these deaths. Further, if you want to say that suicide is revolting, America certainly knew that thousands of Soldiers would die in this process. How is that fundamentally distinct? And, my last point, is that even in December 2011, well after the fact had been established that America invaded on faulty intelligence and that Iraq was never an imminent threat; well after hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were decimated by JDAMs; still, 31% of the Americans polled as to whether they favor the war in Iraq, responded that they do favor it. Of course, that is not quite as shocking as the 2009 poll in which 61% of American respondents stated that they think that dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima was the right thing to do. Let's make sure that we get outraged at Muslims though; no use trying remove this beam from our eyes because it sure as hell is not coming out.

 

[rjd970]

Adding the fact that those who are killing civilians are also committing suicide neither adds nor detracts from the "killing civilians" part. Intent does play a role; I am stating quite clearly that the US intends to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I make this statement on the fact that the civilian casualties are foreseen and the US still opts to strike and kill them. Further, the US is responsible for killing between 101,000 and 341,000 Iraqi civilians between 2003 and 2006. The Iraq War certainly was not a war of self-defense; our involvement was completely voluntary and, further, such high civilian casualty rates were forecasted. Yet, we went and caused these deaths. Further, if you want to say that suicide is revolting, America certainly knew that thousands of Soldiers would die in this process. How is that fundamentally distinct? And, my last point, is that even in December 2011, well after the fact had been established that America invaded on faulty intelligence and that Iraq was never an imminent threat; well after hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were decimated by JDAMs; still, 31% of the Americans polled as to whether they favor the war in Iraq, responded that they do favor it. Of course, that is not quite as shocking as the 2009 poll in which 61% of American respondents stated that they think that dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima was the right thing to do. Let's make sure that we get outraged at Muslims though; no use trying remove this beam from our eyes because it sure as hell is not coming out.

Now you are just being silly. How is it fundamentally distinct? How about the fact that the soldiers are not willingly commiting suicide?

The rest of your post has been addressed, you are just refusing to listen. Once conflict has commenced, regardless of how the conflict commenced or reasons behind it, both sides are engaging in separate and distinct ways.

 

[therealUT]

Now you are just being silly. How is it fundamentally distinct? How about the fact that the soldiers are not willingly commiting suicide?

The rest of your post has been addressed, you are just refusing to listen. Once conflict has commenced, regardless of how the conflict commenced or reasons behind it, both sides are engaging in separate and distinct ways.

There are Soldiers who express that they are willing to die for their cause; the US Military certainly thinks that having their Soldiers die for a cause is a worthwhile endeavor.

Once the conflict has commenced, you are correct. The US and its Western Allies are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians; the terrorists are killing a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands.

Stating an intent and then knowingly acting counter to such an intent makes the stated intent meaningless and, I will argue, absolutely false. You might have an argument if the US stated an intent and then unknowingly acted counter to it; however, the civilian casualties are foreseen, forecasted, and known. The US simply writes them off as "proportional to the military objective".

Further, the fact that 61% of Americans still think that decimating 90,000 civilians was right, is a fact that serves as an insurmountable obstacle to your claim that it is repulsive that 1/3 of Muslims in moderate countries think that killing civilians for a greater cause is sometimes okay.

Japan was no longer a threat when we targeted the civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; hell, they were no longer a threat when we firebombed Tokyo. So, either we drop the whole "Greatest Generation" notion in America and assert that the decisions made by the powers that be in that generation were immoral and resulted in grave breaches against humanity; or, we continue to justify the actions taken in WWII, but to be consistent we must then not feign outrage at the results of the polls you cite.

The intent of the actions taken against the civilians in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was to break their morale so that the Japanese would surrender and accept our conditions (which, as a historical fact they did not). The stated intent of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is to break the morale of Americans by targeting civilians so that America will accept the following conditions:

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Osama bin Laden, 1998

 

[rjd970]

There are Soldiers who express that they are willing to die for their cause; the US Military certainly thinks that having their Soldiers die for a cause is a worthwhile endeavor.

Once the conflict has commenced, you are correct. The US and its Western Allies are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians; the terrorists are killing a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands.

Stating an intent and then knowingly acting counter to such an intent makes the stated intent meaningless and, I will argue, absolutely false. You might have an argument if the US stated an intent and then unknowingly acted counter to it; however, the civilian casualties are foreseen, forecasted, and known. The US simply writes them off as "proportional to the military objective".

They are not going into the conflict with the objective of dying, they would rather live. The other side can't wait to die. It is beyond ridiculous you are trying to compare the two.

 

[therealUT]

They are not going into the conflict with the objective of dying, they would rather live. The other side can't wait to die. It is beyond ridiculous you are trying to compare the two.

The other side would rather live; however, they would rather die in hopes of bringing about a Middle East that is free of both America and Israel.