The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016
- Thread starter RisingPhoenix
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
28 people dead,over 50 injured and not a peep on here
They were just lone wolfs.
If you say so.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #4,659
Had to check the numbers, oops another one.He's closing the gap on you, Maggie!
Heh. So am I...
Must say I have really enjoyed the discussion between you and Total Power, both respectful and interesting.
- Moderator
- #4,660
Hang on. Youre acting like this makes Muslims more violent or more likely to accept attacks on civilians something. Thats not really the case.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, social scientists and counterterrorism experts have been struggling to understand what provokes someone to deliberately take the lives of innocent people. The religious veneer of al Qaeda's public posture led many analysts to search for answers in Islam's teachings. Some analysts have even argued that a wholesale revision of Muslim theology is the only way to defeat violent extremism.
Empirical evidence paints a different picture. Gallup analysis suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about targeting civilians. According to the largest global study of its kind, covering 131 countries, it is human development and governance - not piety or culture - that are the strongest factors in explaining differences in how the public perceives this type of violence.
Empirical evidence paints a different picture. Gallup analysis suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about targeting civilians. According to the largest global study of its kind, covering 131 countries, it is human development and governance - not piety or culture - that are the strongest factors in explaining differences in how the public perceives this type of violence.
And:
Since 9/11, voices arguing that Islam encourages violence more than other religions have grown louder - most recently in the manifesto penned by Anders Breivik before he gunned down more than 70 people in Norway. In his manifesto, Breivik argues that Islam is intrinsically violent and peaceful Muslims are simply ignoring their faith's injunctions to kill. He cites dozens of European and American pundits to support this assertion. If this popular claim were true, it would logically follow that Islam's adherents would be more likely than others to condone violence, even if most find it easier not to follow through on their beliefs, as Breivik contends.
The evidence refutes this argument. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.
The evidence refutes this argument. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.
People are paining Muslims as some kind of monsters that are more likely to condone deliberate attacks on cilivilans whenm the evidence actually paints a different picture.
Do you still think Muslims are some kind of outlier in their views on condoning killing of civilians?
What about people from OIC member states who are now living in non-member countries? It would be interesting to see if there is a difference in attitude for those living in "hostile" (for want of a better word) territory. ie is a Lebanese Muslim now living in London more likely to condone violence than one living in Beirut?
EDIT: Malifice I'm not expecting you to be able to provide an answer to that question, as I doubt one exists! It's more just a point to ponder and I don't know the answer either.
Lethality
Most successful team in your lifetime
- Oct 23, 2014
- 38,592
- 44,472
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
- Banned
- #4,662
Your graphs were about the military attacking civilians. Of course Canadians would be more in favour of this, they are allied with, or have an army that attacks civilians overseas.
Had to check the numbers, oops another one.
Must say I have really enjoyed the discussion between you and Total Power, both respectful and interesting.
Yeah, it's good when people can disagree with each other and nobody plays the man instead of the ball
- Moderator
- #4,664
They show that many people are actually OK with murder of civilians, thinking it can be justified. Whereas a nationalist or 'patriot' in the USA or Australia might be OK with bombing a school or hospital to kill a 'terrorist', a fundamentalist Islamic peep would be OK with a suicide bomber doing the same thing.
The numbers clearly show that we arent that different in views condoning violence against civilians as you are making out.
It's about outcome. Quite a few (as per the article Malifice posted) think that if civilians die to satisfy/meet a military objective, so be it. Terror against civilian targets, reprehensible as it is, seek to achieve political outcomes and if civilians die to meet that objective (according to their thinking) "so be it" as well.
'Collateral damage' looks exactly the same as a dead civilian targeted deliberately. Exactly the same mess of blood and bone and wasted life. One is done by a State, the other a non-State actor.
Tragedy no matter which way you cut it.
Xsess
Norm Smith Medallist
Untrue. People are looking for a military response to counter the rise in the likes of ISIS who are the proponents of mass civilian murder, doesn't mean they condone massive civilian casualties. Remembering that the western military response in Syria has been limited to airstrikes that have been largely ineffective because they are so selective as to avoid civilians.
Last edited:
Xsess
Norm Smith Medallist
So its better to let ISIS expand its deliberate, targeted mass murder of civilians?
Last edited:
Xsess
Norm Smith Medallist
Hell no! How did you get that from what I wrote?
Yep I got the wrong take. My apologies.
- Moderator
- #4,672
Yeah, and ISIS have arisen to counter the military response in the ME.
Thats not whats being argued. What's being argued is 'Muslims are more likely than non Muslims to condone attacks on civilians'. Which is a patently untrue statement. If anything, more 'non Muslims' condone deliberate attacks on civilians than do Muslims.
I never mentioned the military. I was refuting your assertion that 'Muslims are more likely than non Muslims to condone or justify killing civilians'
As in - If we got 20,000 Turkish Muslims in a room with 20,000 American Christians, the American Christians would be more likely to agree with the statement 'It is sometimes justified to kill civilians'
Muslims are not more likely to condone the murder of civilians than non Muslims. ISIL certainly does however. Of course it uses a different distinction than the military/ civilian dichotomy used by militaries. It uses a Muslim/ infidel distinction. Plenty of non Islamic institutions have condoned the mass murder of civilians also. The US government at Hiroshima, Nazi Germany etc etc
Your'e painting Muslims to be some kind of boogeyman, and I reject that argument out of hand. ISIL might be barbaric monsters who condone mass murder of civilians - but that doesnt mean that all Muslims are (nor does it mean that Muslims are more likely to justify such murder).
- Moderator
- #4,674
Dont be intentionally misleading. Attacks by the military that kill civilians.
Your point was that more Muslims think the intentional killing of civilians can be justfied. This patently is not true.
Unless you think an Iranian Muslim somehow thinks that flying a jet over a civilians house and bombing it is somehow worse than a dude strapping 20kgs of plastic explosive on his chest, waking in and detonating it.
Face it, a disturbing number of peeps the world over think 'the intentional targetting of civilians by bombing them' is sometimes justified. Muslims are not alone in this - in fact they seem to be slightly under the world average in agreeing with this statement.
Its one thing to be critical of ISIL and critical of Islam. Its another thing to swallow the Islamophobic Kool aid and start demonizing all Muslims.
Plenty to be critical of with Islam. Tarring Muslims as all somehow being 'more prone to condone the killing of civilians' isnt either a valid or true criticism.
Lethality
Most successful team in your lifetime
- Oct 23, 2014
- 38,592
- 44,472
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
- Banned
- #4,675
I don't need to mislead on anything. Military attacks that target and kill civilians can include anti-terror raids and other dangerous people.
Yes, more Muslims on the same question of terror attacks against civilians. You're happy to equate military action with terrorist attacks, sorry but I can't help you with that bizarre line of thinking.
- Status
