You reap what you sow. If someone says something intelligent, I will give an intelligent response. If you stammer out a bunch of unmitigated bullshit, I’m going to point out what a fucking idiot you are.
And this is just more unmitigated bullshit. I didn’t “fail” to answer anything; you failed, and continue to fail, to understand my point. The fact that you believe I have EVER argued that I am in favor of oppressive theocracies shows that you haven’t got a clue what’s going on here. All that shit you just wrote hasn’t got fuck-all to do with any point I ever made. Stop wasting my time.
Let’s see you find some post where I show a belief that you are in favor of oppressive theocracies. And try and do it without childishly cursing. It really does detract from the minimal willingness I have left to consider anything you write as worth reading. If you can’t find where I accused you of that, maybe you could apologize for the false accusation.
Why is that a problem? It goes to the heart of what we are trying to discover. We know some Muslims are barbarians and murderers. They were trying to find out how prevalent the mindset was.
We could see how others would answer, but it would bew academic, as they are not murdering people in the name of their religion.
The problem is, how prevalent is that mindset in humanity in general? If 30% of everyone everywhere thinks that terrorism can be justified, then there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about learning that 30% of Muslims think terrorism can be justified.
Oh, I completely agree. Holding Islamic faith is no guarantee one will commit, or sympathise with, acts of violence. I never meant to imply otherwise.
My position, put plainly, is this:
Not all ideas are created equal. There are objectively good ideas and objectively bad ones. Treating women as equals - that’s a good idea. Treating women as the property of their men - that’s a bad idea. No question.
The Qur’an contains an awful lot of bad ideas. I quoted some of them in my previous post.
I know, as a matter of verifiable objective fact, that some of these bad ideas underpin the twin doctrines of martyrdom and jihad which give Islam such a bad name.
I know, objectively, that some Muslims, motivated by their desire to adhere to the above doctrines, blow themselves up in public with the sole aim of taking as many innocent men, women, and children with them as humanly possible.
Taking three and four together, I conclude that Islamic terrorism is a logical consequence of belief in some of the bad ideas found in the Qur’an.
I know, as a matter of verifiable objective fact, that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world who support the actions of Islamic terrorists to varying degrees.
It stands to reason, I think, that there is a correlation between the extent of one’s sympathy to Islamic terrorism and the extent to which one believes in some of the bad ideas found in the Qur’an.
If a book can only be called dangerous to the extent to which inspires actions which endanger others, the Qur’an is a dangerous book.
Now, I know full well that there are plenty of Muslims who believe mightily in the God of the Qur’an and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity. This does not undermine my main point that the Qur’an is choc full of bad ideas which inspire both religious violence and support for religious violence.
I am not saying “The Qur’an is objectively an evil book”. I cannot make such a statement. I am saying, however, that the Qur’an contains a lot of objectively bad ideas and that the impact of these ideas is generally underestimated in the West’s current discourse on the matter.
Ah, but the problem is that the Qur’an contains many verses which emphatically call for the subjugation and destruction of unbelievers in terms so unambiguous that no amount of liberal hermeneutics can disguise their writers intent. Take verse 98 of sura 2 “God is the enemy of the unbelievers” There’s really no getting around the meaning of that one.
It is considered the height of impolitic to say this, but Osama Bin Laden actually espouses quite a theologically defensible version of Islam, insofar as there are no shortage of verses which he can use to justify his mad jihad against the West.
I must be horribly dense, but I’m afraid I really don’t see your point. Would you mind rephrasing it for those of use whose brains are still running on a 286
This is true. However, this small minority still comprises millions and millions of people. The fact that so many Muslims worldwide believe suicide attacks against civilians in defence of Islam is often morally justifiable constitutes a grave problem well worth worrying about.
Furthermore, I don’t believe we should ignore those Muslims who feel such attacks are “sometimes” or “rarely” justified. I’m going to make what I hope is a stunningly uncontroversial judgement call and say that there no conceivable circumstance exists which could render the deliberate murder and maiming of innocent civilians in defence of Islam morally justifiable.
Even those respondants who answered that such attacks are only “rarely” justifiable need to urgently recalibrate their moral compasses. Such beliefs are disgusting, and utterly reprehensible.
Those Muslims who responded “Rarely” still believe that, under certain circumstances, it is perfectly OK to kill innocent people in defence of Islam. It is never OK to kill innocent people in defence of Islam, so why should those respondants be grouped in with the “Never” set? Doing so would simply give a false impression of the extent of Muslim tolerance.
A significant percentage of American’s believe suicide attacks against civilians in defence of Islam is morally justifiable? Am I misinterpreting you? Because that doesn’t sound right.
Uh, thanks for the history lesson. Not that it has squat to do with anything. I am not defending or protectiing any religion on what it was, or should be, or will be, but what it is.
Then you are either a liar or a complete fucking idiot. You choose. But I would be interested to learn about all these murderous Buddhists? How about Amish? Any murderous Amish sects?
Well, if you would take your head out of your ass so you could see the screen m ore clearly you might notice that I never said I hate Muslims. I hate those who are murderers and barbarians. I thiink we should be wary of the religion. Not hate it.
No, dumbass. The collateral damage caused by the U.S. is outside the intent of the operation. The point of terrorism is to kill innocents. That is the tactic used to cause the terror. I wold have thought you would have mastered that little nugget before pecking at the keys. My mistake.
NO. NO. NO. You cannot be this jelly-headed. Terrorists blow up schools and markets. This has been done in Iraq repeatedly. You must know this. Now if you want to carve all those people out and talk only about those who are fighting who they perceive as the enemy, that’s another discussion.
I believe that the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima are morlly justifiable, personally, despite the fact that they both targeted civilians deliberately. Do you think I’m wrong about those two incidents, or do you think that as long as the bombs used weren’t strapped to a person, but dropped form a plane, it’s okay? Or is there some other reason why some innocent people may be killed and others may not?
George by combining the “often”, with “sometimes” and “rarely”, and then using that as justification for 'why should we be afraid of all folks in this category" you’re skewing the statitistics.
For example, suppose you asked Americans if the use of torture was ever justified, you’d get, I suspect, similar data. but with those who can come up with some bizarro unlikely scenario where it might be justified are quite a bit different from those who would routinely authorize it, don’t you think? and wouldn’t you object to folks combining all those folks together in order to justify why they should be afraid of Americans?
IOW, the categories are very dissimilar. We should be very afraid of folks who would “often” think suicide bombings are justifiable. and maybe those who think “sometimes” (depending on those qualifications).
historical examples include Dresden and Hiroshima (where some folks believe those to have been terroristic acts targeting to a degree civilians), and of course, the more recent examples that include the “troubles” in Ireland, abortion clinic bombings, and naturally, Tim McVeigh.
The analogy is that all lighting strikes happen on rainy days. So you would be smart to be more careful on rainy days. Staying off golf courses, etc.
(bolding mine)
Look, if you don’t believe that I hold the opinions I put forth, just call me a liar and be done with it. We can both save a lot of time.
Which is why I advocate caustion. Not hate. Not beatings. Caution. Wariness.
I’m not going to read all this then go back through that thread and see what was included and what was not. As I recall, he never defended the homosexuality. If you said he did, fine. He did.
Gotta go now. Should be back later tonight.
So, you’re saying that if I think that, say, the IRA is justified in attacking Protestants in Ireland, I’ve only committed a “thought crime.” But if the Muslim guy who lives next door to me thinks that Hamas is justified in attacking Jews who live in Israel, that’s somehow materially different, even if neither of us has ever acted on our beliefs about the acceptability of terrorism?
Do I have evidence to the contrary… that would explain the results… of a hypothetical poll that no one has actually run?
Well, the question is, which opinion do I take as your real opinion? The one where you say not all Muslims are terrorists, or the one where you say we should treat all Muslims as terrorists, because we can’t be too careful?
What you advocate is not caution, it is prejudice.
Hmm, good question. It’s interesting that you picked those particular examples as they ones on which I am personally quite conflicted. I would argue, tentatively, that the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima was morally justifiable, in spite of the fact that innocent civilians were deliberately targeted. I feel this way because, as I understand it, it was the only way to end the war with Japan which didn’t involve a full scale land invasion. Such an invasion would have cost many, many more lives. Put simply, it was the lesser of two evils. The death toll at Hiroshima may make this hard to believe but everything I’ve read on the subject indicates that this was indeed the case. I could well be wrong on this, but that’s what I think at the moment.
Furthermore, the goal the United States was trying to achieve in attacking Hiroshima was undoubtedly both necessary and morally justifiable.
I see no evidence the Jihadi’s decimating Iraq are allowing utilitarian concerns to inform their actions. Their intent with each attack seems to be to cause as much carnage as humanly possible. Moreover, their intention, to “defend Islam” is one which would be laughable if so many people weren’t getting killed. I would put the actions of the Jihadi’s on lower moral plane than the actions of the U.S. Government when they sanctioned the attack on Hiroshima.
As for Dresden…well, I don’t know enough about the Dresden bombings to offer a worthwhile assessment of the extent to which they were morally justifiable. However, what little I do know suggests that they were far less justifiable than the attack on Hiroshima. Again, I could be entirely wrong about that.
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. You’re right that a lot of people would probably say that torture was “rarely” necessary. I’m one of those people and I’m pretty sure I’m not a threat to anyone. The difference, however, between your question and the question posed by the Pew poll was that the moral status of torture is far less clear cut than the moral status of killing innocents in defence of Islam. The question of torture may be posed in such language as to awaken the Grand Inquistor in all of us. If the U.S. Government had in custody a man they knew to be guilty of planting a nuclear warhead somewhere under New York, and that the only way to ascertain its location was through torture, most of us would have no problem dusting off the strappado and exposing this guy to a particurly unpleasant suasion of bygone times.
I can think of no bizarro situation under which the deliberate murder of children in defence of Islam could ever be considered anything less than an unequivocal atrocity. Therefore I’m much more likely to be suspicious of people who say such acts are “rarely” justified than I am of people who say torture is “rarely” justified.
Now, I know what you (and probably saiorse) are thinking: “Oh, this guy is just doing more of the same old special pleading you hear from Muslim bashers everywhere. He thinks it’s only wrong when the other guy does it”. I can only assure you this genuinely isn’t the case. If you can convince me that there are circumstances, bizarre as they may be, that suicide attacks on civilians in defence of Islam (or any religion, come to that) are morally justifiable, I’d be willing to reconsider my position. I very much doubt the powers of the human mind are sufficient to make such a case, however.
You seem to have missed a good deal of my post. The Muslims who have responded as saying suicide bombings can be justified have quite obviously not blown themselves up. You’re conflating “Sometimes these acts can be justified” with “I’m going to blow myself up tomorrow!”
