4 ms·

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majorit

by ern 11y ago

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

ceejayoz 11y ago
Saudi Arabia has a very well documented history of supporting (not just tacitly) Islamic terrorism. They just don't like groups with territorial ambitions that include their own lands.
dlss 11y ago
> Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... might be a better source to cite. * In France, 19% of muslims think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can sometimes be justified, and 6% thought it could be justified often. * In the UK: 12% sometimes, and 3% often * In Egypt: 20% sometimes, and 8% often * In Nigeria: 38% sometimes, and 8% often So you're right that it's not the silent majority. It's the silent 25-46%.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  The "sometimes" there is a pretty big qualifier. I run across a lot of Americans who think civilian casualties are justifiable in some situations, like hitting a terrorist with a drone when there are civilians nearby. From the link you cite: > John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more religious than Muslims who do not.
  - dlss 11y ago
    I would think American acceptance of civilian casualties would be contingent on agreeing that the war was justified, and I'll remind you the survey data we are talking about is specifically in reference to terrorism. To grab a specific example from that page: > almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified Which you can read about here if you're not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings > On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist extremists separately detonated three bombs in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured in the attacks, the United Kingdom's worst terrorist incident since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing as well as the country's first ever Islamist suicide attack. Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy combatants on the three subway trains? Who were the enemy combatants on the double-decker bus? To put that another way: a large portion of muslims seeing terrorists in the same light that Americans see the US Armed forces means they approve of terrorists.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      > almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified The same line states "although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity", which is a pretty important thing to omit. > Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy combatants on the London subway system? Who were the enemy combatants on the double-decker bus? I'm simply arguing that the wording "can violence against civilians sometimes be justified" is vague enough it could encompass precisely those sorts of unintended casualties. I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted against civilians be justified". I'd also be interested in the reasons cited by those answering yes. Plenty of Americans feel today that the bombing of Hiroshima was appropriate, despite it falling well within that category.
      - dlss 11y ago

by ern 11y ago

ceejayoz 11y ago

Saudi Arabia has a very well documented history of supporting (not just tacitly) Islamic terrorism. They just don't like groups with territorial ambitions that include their own lands.

dlss 11y ago

> Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... might be a better source to cite. * In France, 19% of muslims think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can sometimes be justified, and 6% thought it could be justified often. * In the UK: 12% sometimes, and 3% often * In Egypt: 20% sometimes, and 8% often * In Nigeria: 38% sometimes, and 8% often So you're right that it's not the silent majority. It's the silent 25-46%.

ceejayoz 11y ago
The "sometimes" there is a pretty big qualifier. I run across a lot of Americans who think civilian casualties are justifiable in some situations, like hitting a terrorist with a drone when there are civilians nearby. From the link you cite: > John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more religious than Muslims who do not.
- dlss 11y ago
  I would think American acceptance of civilian casualties would be contingent on agreeing that the war was justified, and I'll remind you the survey data we are talking about is specifically in reference to terrorism. To grab a specific example from that page: > almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified Which you can read about here if you're not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings > On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist extremists separately detonated three bombs in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured in the attacks, the United Kingdom's worst terrorist incident since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing as well as the country's first ever Islamist suicide attack. Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy combatants on the three subway trains? Who were the enemy combatants on the double-decker bus? To put that another way: a large portion of muslims seeing terrorists in the same light that Americans see the US Armed forces means they approve of terrorists.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified The same line states "although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity", which is a pretty important thing to omit. > Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy combatants on the London subway system? Who were the enemy combatants on the double-decker bus? I'm simply arguing that the wording "can violence against civilians sometimes be justified" is vague enough it could encompass precisely those sorts of unintended casualties. I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted against civilians be justified". I'd also be interested in the reasons cited by those answering yes. Plenty of Americans feel today that the bombing of Hiroshima was appropriate, despite it falling well within that category.
    - dlss 11y ago