5 ms·

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

by 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
  > I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted against civilians be justified" The survey we're discussing asked "can suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam be justified". Note "against civilian targets". > 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. That was from a different survey, done a year prior to the one I quoted. I don't debate that moods shift in the muslim population, hence the link to all the surveys I'm aware of.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > The survey we're discussing was "can suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified". Note "against civilian targets". I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-after-hiroshima-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-aft... > [T]he share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not.
    - dlss 11y ago
      > I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves. You really don't see the difference? Americans justify the use of nukes on the basis of the war being just. For example, if we'd nuked Japan because we thought sushi was an abomination, approval of our use of nukes would plummet. If we'd nuked Japan after the war, approval would plummet. If we killed Japaneese Americans rather than Japaneese, approval would plummet. This is why it's dishonest to equate approval of the wartime use of nukes to the approval of the suicide bombing of civilians on a subway. The foundational beliefs have no similarity. Also, saying that a large percentage of muslims feel like they are in combat with their countrymen doesn't make it any better... if anything it just makes the survey data scarier. From http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armag... > More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces.

by dlss 11y ago

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
> I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted against civilians be justified" The survey we're discussing asked "can suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam be justified". Note "against civilian targets". > 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. That was from a different survey, done a year prior to the one I quoted. I don't debate that moods shift in the muslim population, hence the link to all the surveys I'm aware of.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > The survey we're discussing was "can suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified". Note "against civilian targets". I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-after-hiroshima-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-aft... > [T]he share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not.
  - dlss 11y ago
    > I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves. You really don't see the difference? Americans justify the use of nukes on the basis of the war being just. For example, if we'd nuked Japan because we thought sushi was an abomination, approval of our use of nukes would plummet. If we'd nuked Japan after the war, approval would plummet. If we killed Japaneese Americans rather than Japaneese, approval would plummet. This is why it's dishonest to equate approval of the wartime use of nukes to the approval of the suicide bombing of civilians on a subway. The foundational beliefs have no similarity. Also, saying that a large percentage of muslims feel like they are in combat with their countrymen doesn't make it any better... if anything it just makes the survey data scarier. From http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armag... > More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces.