NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The thread title isn't exactly helping, but the article you're quoting is really interesting and alarming.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
Wow.

(bolding mine)

Holy shit.

The only thing I can say is that maybe that percentage of people were ignorant enough to think of the Middle East as one big terrorist training camp full of evil rather than a real region with cities and normal people. But I say that mainly to comfort myself.

Well that was sobering. I'm going to go drown myself in caffinne.

Holy shit.

The only thing I can say is that maybe that percentage of people were ignorant enough to think of the Middle East as one big terrorist training camp full of evil rather than a real region with cities and normal people. But I say that mainly to comfort myself.
I think you misread something somewhere. You confuse me.

Scary. Dead scary. That such a high percentage of Americans hold those views is, frankly, nucking futs. No wonder theres no huge outcries over whats happening in Iraq.

Very interesting article. Thanks to the OP for posting it. Alot of truths in there.

Well that was sobering.Yeah, that describes it pretty well.

No wonder theres no huge outcries over whats happening in Iraq.Yeah. And here we have been sitting and lamenting about how the Americans are just overreacting because they're still scared from the attacks against them and blindly lashing out.

Why do I get the jabbing feeling that these studies in America were taken just outside of civilized society. Let me go around my neighborhood and college campus and ask: "Do you support bombing civilians?" and the results will be surprising.

Much like the surveys that show Americans can't find america on the map. I have never in my life found an American that stupid.

I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Much like the surveys that show Americans can't find america on the map.

I think they mean Americans can ONLY find America on a map.

Perhaps because Americans are so very much more unlikely to be the victims of those attacks launched against civilians.

Also, 'innocent' seems like a very European word, I can imagine that the question may lose a bit in translation in nations that speak a different language, (which, of course, is always the danger of international polls).

Yeah. And here we have been sitting and lamenting about how the Americans are just overreacting because they're still scared from the attacks against them and blindly lashing out.

?

The US will also have alot more terrorists in it if the US pulls out of Iraq too because if they can't go anywhere to kill soldiers they're going to start coming over here.

?Oops. That unintelligible? >.<

I was trying to say that I agree with your point and that I was surprised about Americans, of all people, being so nonchalant about attacks on civilians, seeing how they're fighting a war right now because their own civilians were attacked, scaring the American public to death and causing them to overreact like hell.

I think they mean Americans can ONLY find America on a map.

I've never met an American who couldn't point to Canada or Mexico on a map.

Surveys suck. One can conduct a survey that shows most Americans being atheist monkeys just as easily as you can conduct a survey that shows that most Americans are scientologist insects. Insects that must be squashed before they can contaminate the world with psycotic filth.

Perhaps because Americans are so very much more unlikely to be the victims of those attacks launched against civilians. Well, historically yes, but the whole mess right now came about because they were the victims of such attacks against civilians. So with 9/11 "the biggest tragedy" in the US public consciousness right now, wouldn't you think they'd be more careful before signing off on targeted attacks on civilians, of all things?


Also, 'innocent' seems like a very European word, I can imagine that the question may lose a bit in translation in nations that speak a different language, (which, of course, is always the danger of international polls).Actually, I would think that innocent is one of the words that should be pretty easy to translate into any language, even if only because all of these countries do have a legal system...

The US will also have alot more terrorists in it if the US pulls out of Iraq too because if they can't go anywhere to kill soldiers they're going to start coming over here.
Yes. So much better to keep the terrorists busy in Iraq, where they'll kill Iraqi civilians. Convenient, even.

Oops. That unintelligible? >.<

I was trying to say that I agree with your point and that I was surprised about Americans, of all people, being so nonchalant about attacks on civilians, seeing how they're fighting a war right now because their own civilians were attacked, scaring the American public to death and causing them to overreact like hell.

Not really. I'm tired and its late *yawn*

why are people so fucking bloodthirsty?! i wonder what those that answered the poll thought might justify an attack on civilians. what on earth could those civilians have done to justify blowing them up? actually i have an idea, i bet it's something to do with facing east five(?) times a day and being brown.

Americans, by the large (and this is something of a generalization), have very little sense of perspective. For us, a bomb threat at a school is more harrowing then the school siege in Chechnya. We don't experience atrocities, we don't see their consequences, we don't understand why they occur; we just watch TV. To Americans, "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" is something that happens somewhere else to someone else. To someone in a nation like Pakistan, it's a very real threat on a daily basis.

It's difficult to issue honest moral judgment on something you have never experienced. How many Americans have any fucking idea what a bomb actually does to people? How many have seen the mangled corpses and the shear terror they wreak?

Not many. It’s all to easy to accept something you never have to deal with.

Americans, by the large (and this is something of a generalization), have very little sense of perspective. For us, a bomb threat at a school is more harrowing then the school siege in Chechnya. We don't experience atrocities, we don't see their consequences, we don't understand why they occur; we just watch TV. To Americans, "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" is something that happens somewhere else to someone else. To someone in a nation like Pakistan, it's a very real threat on a daily basis.

It's difficult to issue honest moral judgment on something you have never experienced. How many Americans have any fucking idea what a bomb actually does to people? How many have seen the mangled corpses and the shear terror they wreak?

Not many. It’s all to easy to accept something you never have to deal with.Two things:

One, it's only "easy to accept" if by accept you mean "Not think about it too much apart from saying "Oh, that's terrible" when a news clip comes on and forgetting about it again."
If by accept you mean saying "Yes, bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are often or sometimes justified" (which what the people polled here said) I seriously don't see how that would be easy even if you have never seen a bombing with your own eyes or know someone who has.

Two, the American people HAVE seen attacks intentionally aimed at civilians. It's what they're waging a war over right now.

why are people so fucking bloodthirsty?! i wonder what those that answered the poll thought might justify an attack on civilians. what on earth could those civilians have done to justify blowing them up? actually i have an idea, i bet it's something to do with facing east five(?) times a day and being brown.
I'm thinking the debate goes like this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34234). :p

Two things:

One, it's only "easy to accept" if by accept you mean "Not think about it too much apart from saying "Oh, that's terrible" when a news clip comes on and forgetting about it again."
If by accept you mean saying "Yes, bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are often or sometimes justified" (which what the people polled here said) I seriously don't see how that would be easy even if you have never seen a bombing with your own eyes or know someone who has.

Two, the American people HAVE seen attacks intentionally aimed at civilians. It's what they're waging a war over right now.

One, you're pretty much right. On the whole, people DON'T think about it too much when the news bite rolls by. It is literally and figuratively a world away from their "real life" concerns. And yes, in the back of people's minds, the reality of a bombing doesn't ring home. The only thing that comes to mind is that they won't rule out anything... Consequences aren't real, they're another news bite. Honestly, we only pity in others the evils we ourselves endure.

Two, the actual damage of 9/11 is already distant and obscure compared to the rhetoric it has spawned. There is very little genuine emotional or rational resonance because of it. Nothing compared to what people in some of those countries named deal with everyday.

The US will also have alot more terrorists in it if the US pulls out of Iraq too because if they can't go anywhere to kill soldiers they're going to start coming over here.

That's very silly.

There are alot of Americans who talk tough. They're called rednecks, but compare the number of Americans who actually commit terrorist attacks to the number of Middle Easterners who do. Also, a factor that may explain this is that America was recently attacked on 9/11. Now I realize that Middle Eastern countries deal with violence all the time, but the attacks of 9/11 have the biggest psychological effect. The terrorists came from overseas to attack us, instead of a neighboring country. Also, this is the first time ever that we saw death coming from the sky. This kind of terrorist attack has never been committed before. In the uncivilized Middle Eastern nations, terrorists attacks are commonplace, but America is a civilized nation. Americans have better ways of resolving their differences. We have a greater respect for human life, but the instant you mess with us, we react furiously. When the terrorists of 9/11 showed that they have no respect for the lives of our people, America responded in a similiar manner. Also, polls are unreliable.

Well, historically yes, but the whole mess right now came about because they were the victims of such attacks against civilians. So with 9/11 "the biggest tragedy" in the US public consciousness right now, wouldn't you think they'd be more careful before signing off on targeted attacks on civilians, of all things?


Actually, I would think that innocent is one of the words that should be pretty easy to translate into any language, even if only because all of these countries do have a legal system...

9/11, in terms of lives claimed, was no worse than what many other nations experienced during 2001 - the difference is that 9/11 had shitloads of symbolism, which is really what got the whole of the Western World so angry. But the fact remains that there is, was, and will be terrorism all over the world. Many of the people in the places surveyed may be connected to terrorist victims by only one or two degrees of separation. Random, cold-blooded murder is an everyday fact of life in many of the world's nations. For America, it was a horrible novelty.

And as for 'innocent', I think that it means quite a lot more than just 'not guilty'. 'Innocent' has theological connotations, Adam and Eve were innocent, until they were corrupted by sin. 'Innocence' is often connotated with virginity and infancy. So to an English-speaking person, 'innocent' brings up connotations of young, uncorrupted children (and I would guess in other European languages to, due to the shared cultural context of the Roman Church). But who is to say what an Urdu-speaker will make of a translated term that may either mean 'without guilt', 'without sin' or 'without corruption'.

One, you're pretty much right. On the whole, people DON'T think about it too much when the news bite rolls by. It is literally and figuratively a world away from their "real life" concerns. And yes, in the back of people's minds, the reality of a bombing doesn't ring home. The only thing that comes to mind is that they won't rule out anything... Consequences aren't real, they're another news bite. Honestly, we only pity in others the evils we ourselves endure. Well, that's certainly the way things are here (Germany) and probably most everywhere else where such things play out only in the news.
But do you really think that usually translates into such a rather high rate of approval for attacks on civilians?
I don't. Of course, I also can't show any numbers for any other, e.g. European, countries, so I can't prove that.

Two, the actual damage of 9/11 is already distant and obscure compared to the rhetoric it has spawned. There is very little genuine emotional or rational resonance because of it. Nothing compared to what people in some of those countries named deal with everyday.I don't know. Now, Pakistan certainly have seen their share of frequent bombings and the like, but Indonesia and Bangladesh? Do you really think the Bali bombings have influenced Indonesian opinion on this topic so much more than 9/11 has in the US? I can't imagine that to be the case.


I also really have to go to bed, so I very impolitely won't be around anymore to read your reply tonight. Sorry. :p

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

The one case I can think of in which intentionally bombing civilians is permittable would be when the Germans and Japanese were bombed in WW2. Perhaps most of the Americans who answered that is ok to intentionally bomb civilians were thinking along these lines?

I can't draw any contemporary situations in which I would allow the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. And I do find the statistics of this article somewhat hard to believe. Nigeria is all good and fine, but what are the statistics for nations such as Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan?

Or for the Muslims of the West, for that matter?

9/11, in terms of lives claimed, was no worse than what many other nations experienced during 2001 - the difference is that 9/11 had shitloads of symbolism, which is really what got the whole of the Western World so angry. But the fact remains that there is, was, and will be terrorism all over the world. Many of the people in the places surveyed may be connected to terrorist victims by only one or two degrees of separation. Random, cold-blooded murder is an everyday fact of life in many of the world's nations. That is why I put "the biggest tragedy" in quotation marks and also agreed with you that historically America had been pretty much spared this.
For America, it was a horrible novelty.That's exactly the point I was making.

And as for 'innocent', I think that it means quite a lot more than just 'not guilty'. True, which makes my post referring to the legal system a bit silly.

'Innocent' has theological connotations, Adam and Eve were innocent, until they were corrupted by sin. 'Innocence' is often connotated with virginity and infancy. So to an English-speaking person, 'innocent' brings up connotations of young, uncorrupted children (and I would guess in other European languages to, due to the shared cultural context of the Roman Church). But who is to say what an Urdu-speaker will make of a translated term that may either mean 'without guilt', 'without sin' or 'without corruption'.So doesn't the bolded part make the poll results even more shocking?

The questions (in the OP) seem rather biased.
There is a difference between 'Do you advocate terrorism' and 'Do you think attacks on civilian targets are justified sometimes'.
I, for one, have no issue with blowing up a house if its packed with people shooting at me. Its unfourtunate that civilians may die, and of course other options should be explored, but in the end, a soldiers main priority is to survive.
Im sure some people have heard about the US missions in Somalia where guys with AK-47's would literally sit under piles of children and take potshots at soldiers.

Perhaps the interviewed Americans are not being the absolutists that Americans are typically portrayed as. Perhaps they're trying to think about potential situations where a terrorist type of event might even be partially justified, due to existing legitimate grievances against a theoretical, unjust society.

That's why I'd answer sometimes, now, don't get me wrong, I would say that terrorist attacks are never justified, but, if I were to say that there are conditions under which a justification might exist, this would be why.

Holy shit.

The only thing I can say is that maybe that percentage of people were ignorant enough to think of the Middle East as one big terrorist training camp full of evil rather than a real region with cities and normal people. But I say that mainly to comfort myself.

Probably the more likely situation.

Yeah thanks for ruining my day. Now I can't concentrate on the scripts I was writing for that fan project. As if the issues with my mouse dying weren't bad enough...:headbang:

There are alot of Americans who talk tough. They're called rednecks, but compare the number of Americans who actually commit terrorist attacks to the number of Middle Easterners who do.

Americans don't need to commit terrorist acts. They have the most advanced army the world has every seen. If the Muslims had a nuclear arsenal, a large aircraft carrier fleet and every imaginable piece of military rubbish then they would have no need to commit terrorist actions. They don't enjoy blowing themselves up, its desparation, pure and simple, and a little bit of brainwashing.

If Americans were robbed of their military and put in the Muslim's position, they too would use whatever methods necessary to return to their former power.

Also, a factor that may explain this is that America was recently attacked on 9/11. Now I realize that Middle Eastern countries deal with violence all the time, but the attacks of 9/11 have the biggest psychological effect. The terrorists came from overseas to attack us, instead of a neighboring country.

What? Losing loved ones doesn't get any easier the more it happens. If anything, the countries more besetted by terrorism may have learnt how not to overreact.

Also, this is the first time ever that we saw death coming from the sky.

Cou-Pearl Harbour-ough!

This kind of terrorist attack has never been committed before. In the uncivilized Middle Eastern nations, terrorists attacks are commonplace, but America is a civilized nation.

Racist, Imperialist tosh. There is nothing more uncivilised than accusing another society of being uncivilised.

Americans have better ways of resolving their differences.

No you don't.

We have a greater respect for human life, but the instant you mess with us, we react furiously. When the terrorists of 9/11 showed that they have no respect for the lives of our people, America responded in a similiar manner.

Doublethink plusgood.

Also, polls are unreliable.

Yes. They are.

Much like the surveys that show Americans can't find america on the map. I have never in my life found an American that stupid.

well, they do only make up about 6% of 18-24 year olds. finding ohio, on the other hand, seems quite difficult for around 60% of the population

Americans don't need to commit terrorist acts. They have the most advanced army the world has every seen. If the Muslims had a nuclear arsenal, a large aircraft carrier fleet and every imaginable piece of military rubbish then they would have no need to commit terrorist actions. They don't enjoy blowing themselves up, its desparation, pure and simple, and a little bit of brainwashing.
If Americans were robbed of their military and put in the Muslim's position, they too would use whatever methods necessary to return to their former power.
What? Losing loved ones doesn't get any easier the more it happens. If anything, the countries more besetted by terrorism may have learnt how not to overreact.
Cou-Pearl Harbour-ough!
Racist, Imperialist tosh. There is nothing more uncivilised than accusing another society of being uncivilised.
No you don't.
Doublethink plusgood.
Yes. They are.
Islamists don't need to commit to terrrorism either. Why don't they attack US military forces? It's not terrorism to attack armed forces, if they weren't cowards, that's what they would do excusively, instead of orchestrating attacks against civilians.

The Vietnamese fought the US military, not the US people. They were much weaker, yet they won without resorting to terrorist attacks on the US. The Japanese attacked a military base, not a skyscraper in an American city.

So, you see, deliberate attacks on civilians are what cowards resort to. Not because they don't have the military toys that we do, or because they're in a weaker strategic position. But because they're cowads.

If there's nothing more "racist" and "imperialist" than calling another country or civilization savage, wouldn't that make the great majority of the Muslim world "racist" and "imperialist"?

What was that about doublethink?

The Vietnamese fought the US military, not the US people. They were much weaker, yet they won without resorting to terrorist attacks on the US. The Japanese attacked a military base, not a skyscraper in an American city.

The Vietnamese used terrorist tactics on their own people (of course, so did the United States, but thats not the point in this case), and the Japanese killed millions of civilians in China and throughout East Asia.

The Vietnamese used terrorist tactics on their own people (of course, so did the United States, but thats not the point in this case), and the Japanese killed millions of civilians in China and throughout East Asia.

The Japanese struck the base at Pearl Harbor instead of Honolulu. They did terrible things in Asia, but that was done after they conquered them, not during the process of conquering. I'm not excusing it, but it's important to make the distinction.

The Vietnamese were fighting a civil war, with a foreign occupying power. Interestingly enough, they never directly attacked the US.

Yeah they reacted by bombing Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

We reacted by invading Afghanistan, which had everything to do with 9/11.

Iraq is an outgrowth of 9/11.

Yeah they reacted by bombing Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

That's very silly.

if the Democrats win in '08 you'll see what i mean :(

Holy shit.

The only thing I can say is that maybe that percentage of people were ignorant enough to think of the Middle East as one big terrorist training camp full of evil rather than a real region with cities and normal people. But I say that mainly to comfort myself.

Yeah. And a sample of that percentage makes it to NSG like New Mitanni and Eve "I'm Swear I'm Not Deep Kimchi Despite Wanting Muslims Sterilized" Online.

The Japanese struck the base at Pearl Harbor instead of Honolulu. They did terrible things in Asia, but that was done after they conquered them, not during the process of conquering. I'm not excusing it, but it's important to make the distinction.

The Vietnamese were fighting a civil war, with a foreign occupying power. Interestingly enough, they never directly attacked the US.

The Japanese SO used terror as part of the process of conqouring people. They, like the Germans, used civilian towns as target practice in the opening days of the war.

And I wonder why the Vietnamese never attacked America...gee, maybe they were busy elsewhere? And lacked the equipment to make such an attack practical or useful?
Sure, they could have, but what purpose would it have served? They blow up a port, one of the many hundreds we have, and what good does it do them?

Yeah. And a sample of that percentage makes it to NSG like New Mitanni and Eve "I'm Swear I'm Not Deep Kimchi Despite Wanting Muslims Sterilized" Online.

I think I've figured out your train of thought, such as it is.

Anyone who you vehemently disagree with is all the same person.

Holy shit.

The only thing I can say is that maybe that percentage of people were ignorant enough to think of the Middle East as one big terrorist training camp full of evil rather than a real region with cities and normal people. But I say that mainly to comfort myself.

Yes, trying to convince ourselves that it is simple ignorance that is the reason for such cruel arrogance is wishful thinking. More likely it is simply that many Americans believe that killing foreigners to protect ourselves is just fine under any circumstances.

Very good piece... It says very well what I've thought and said before, and mixes in a good twist by asking the same question to americans. But I am a bit shocked, I must admit...

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.

But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts – and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.

Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.

Bolded some important points...

Racist, Imperialist tosh. There is nothing more uncivilised than accusing another society of being uncivilised.


How is that racist or uncivilized. Also, if you accuse those who accuse others of being uncivilized as being uncivilized themselves, then doesn't that make you also uncilvilized. I just love arguing against Postmodernist reasoning. It's so easy.

gravedigger!

How is that racist or uncivilized.

well lets see what’s a key mark of barbarism?

Also, if you accuse those who accuse others of being uncivilized as being uncivilized themselves, then doesn't that make you also uncilvilized.

no it makes you rational

I just love arguing against Postmodernist reasoning. It's so easy.

Postmodernism is so 1996 nowadays its called rationality and to some extent understanding

Two, the American people HAVE seen attacks intentionally aimed at civilians. It's what they're waging a war over right now.

No offense, but America has suffered very little terrorism, 9/11 notwithstanding.

How many attacks take place in a month?

There are countries which suffer far more attacks and have lost far more people.

I remember this thread...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

In your face, paranoiacs! (http://paranoiacs.justgotowned.com)

In your face, paranoids! (http://paranoids.justgotowned.com)

Fixed.

Americans have better ways of resolving their differences. We have a greater respect for human life,.....

Like the death sentence, torture, funding death squads, invading countries on false pretences, organising coups against democratically elected governments, supporting dictators and colonisers....

I think I've figured out your train of thought, such as it is.

Anyone who you vehemently disagree with is all the same person.

Meh, there are those types everywhere. I disagree with you on alot, but at least you try to be intelligent about it(Don't take that as an insult-I have a bit of contempt towards people, and that's as close to a complement as I get). New Mittani, and DC, on the other hand, are just raving loonies.

Like the death sentence, torture, funding death squads, invading countries on false pretences, organising coups against democratically elected governments, supporting dictators and colonisers....

Well, ignoring the first one, we don't do those things to fellow Americans. I'm sure that is what matters to many, yes?

Well, ignoring the first one, we don't do those things to fellow Americans. I'm sure that is what matters to many, yes?

O yes. Outside US borders its obviously different. Its not like they're real people or anything. They're quite used to it and don't really mind, if the truth be told.

Racist, Imperialist tosh. There is nothing more uncivilised than accusing another society of being uncivilised.
Really? How about stoning people to death for fornication? Punishing rape victims more severely than rapists? Beating girls with sticks to drive them back into a burning building to die, rather than let them be seen unveiled in public? Cutting off the hands of thieves? Forbidding women to testify in court? Banning all political opposition? Killing apostates?

Saudi Arabia does all of the above, and more, in the name of their detestable religion, and you would claim that this is more civilized than a denunciation of the same!?

Like
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/BushEdit.jpg
:D

well lets see what’s a key mark of barbarism?
Inability to speak Greek?

no it makes you rational
Actually, what it makes you is an idiotic cultural relativist who has failed to realize that relativism, being itself a (thankfully minority) Western cultural value, cannot make any absolute claims without contradicting itself.

Postmodernism is so 1996 nowadays its called rationality and to some extent understanding
Rationality recognizes the superiority of those cultures which embrace reason.

O NOES!121!! i'M GOING TO BE LIBERATED BY AMERIKA!!!!!

On a more general note, not all attacks on civilians are unjustified, because not all civilians are innocent.

O yes. Outside US borders its obviously different. Its not like they're real people or anything. They're quite used to it and don't really mind, if the truth be told.

I'm sure eventually we will convince those who think America can do whatever it wants in the world that they are mistaken. Pissing everyone off isn't exactly a wise strategy after all.

I've never met an American who couldn't point to Canada or Mexico on a map.

Well i met americans that couldn't point Oregon on a map... Actually i won once a bet with an american about the fact that Oregon is on the west coast (she was convinced that it was in place of Montana)

Inability to speak Greek?

no knee jerk bullshit, though back in those days everyone was barbaric so you get a D+

Actually, what it makes you is an idiotic cultural relativist

Oh dear your not going to give me some gibberish on morals are you

Rationality recognizes the superiority of those cultures which embrace reason.

No culture embraces reason

On a more general note, not all attacks on civilians are unjustified, because not all civilians are innocent.

Um…I don’t quite know where to begin you’ve stunned me…Ann coulter is that you?

The one case I can think of in which intentionally bombing civilians is permittable would be when the Germans and Japanese were bombed in WW2. Perhaps most of the Americans who answered that is ok to intentionally bomb civilians were thinking along these lines?

I can't draw any contemporary situations in which I would allow the intentional targeting of innocent civilians. And I do find the statistics of this article somewhat hard to believe. Nigeria is all good and fine, but what are the statistics for nations such as Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan?

Or for the Muslims of the West, for that matter?
(my emphasys)

I think that this proves the poll correct...

Intentional bombing of civilians is always an act of terrorism.

He should have extended that study to Israel, and in particular to the voluntary settlers in the occupied territories, I wouldn't be surprised to find a 100% approval rate of attacks against Arab civilians, and forcing them to live in inhumane ways. Those 'Greater Israel' settlers are seriously pretty crazy people.

Fixed.

SOITAKAA PARANOID!!!

Finished with my woman cause she couldn't help me with my mind
People think I'm insane because I am browning all the time

Can you help me? Thought you were my friend
Whoaaaa yeah!

no knee jerk bullshit, though back in those days everyone was barbaric so you get a D+
If you had a trait in mind, you should have mentioned one. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Oh dear your not going to give me some gibberish on morals are you
If I do, it will at the very least be more intellectually coherent than "it's uncivilized to call people uncivilized."

No culture embraces reason
Perhaps not entirely, but some embrace it more than others.

Um…I don’t quite know where to begin you’ve stunned me…Ann coulter is that you?
Now are you going to start talking about morals? Anyway, what's difficult about the idea that not all civies are innocent? How about Hamas fundraisers, for example?

He should have extended that study to Israel, and in particular to the voluntary settlers in the occupied territories, I wouldn't be surprised to find a 100% approval rate of attacks against Arab civilians, and forcing them to live in inhumane ways. Those 'Greater Israel' settlers are seriously pretty crazy people.
Yes, because all Israelis are EEEEEVILLLL. Not like the Palestinians at all. They obviously don't approve of terrorism. It's not like they elected as their government a terrorist group or anything...

Yes, because all Israelis are EEEEEVILLLL. Not like the Palestinians at all. They obviously don't approve of terrorism. It's not like they elected as their government a terrorist group or anything...
Are the settlers typical of all Israelis? Moreover, one hardly has to approve of one or the other.

Now are you going to start talking about morals? Anyway, what's difficult about the idea that not all civies are innocent? How about Hamas fundraisers, for example?
How do you know which civilians are Hamas fundraisers?

He should have extended that study to Israel, and in particular to the voluntary settlers in the occupied territories, I wouldn't be surprised to find a 100% approval rate of attacks against Arab civilians, and forcing them to live in inhumane ways. Those 'Greater Israel' settlers are seriously pretty crazy people.

I hope this thread hasn't been revived just to descend into Israel bashing flames. Would irritate me to no end.

How do you know which civilians are Hamas fundraisers?
Isn't that the point of having intelligence agencies?

Isn't that the point of having intelligence agencies?
There are probably thousands of them, and they're not confined to any particular city. You can hardly bomb them all. If they're particularly zealous fundraisers, I'm not sure if they're still civilians anyway.

Yes, because all Israelis are EEEEEVILLLL. Not like the Palestinians at all. They obviously don't approve of terrorism. It's not like they elected as their government a terrorist group or anything...

Just so you know, I don't anyone seriously who uses the term 'terrorist', as this term in modern usage in last few years has been coined by the US to somehow detach and dehumanize those they dislike. So anyone using it obviously is trying to draw on false notions and fear politics to get a political agenda across. If your using 'terrorist' in it's proper usage then the Zionist regime in Israel is by far the greatest terrorist state existing at the moment. Both in terms of terrorist actions and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Just so you know, I don't anyone seriously who uses the term 'terrorist', as this term in modern usage in last few years has been coined by the US to somehow detach and dehumanize those they dislike. So anyone using it obviously is trying to draw on false notions and fear politics to get a political agenda across. If your using 'terrorist' in it's proper usage then the Zionist regime in Israel is by far the greatest terrorist state existing at the moment. Both in terms of terrorist actions and oppression of the Palestinian people.

The Israelis could be massacring the Palestinians if they really wanted to be oppressive. Perhaps you should turn your attention to someplace like Sudan if you want real oppression.

Depends on the method.

Suicide bombers running into a crowd of Americans? Ok to Middle Easterners, evil to Americans.

Dropping bombs by the thousand ton on major cities that may or may not be home to suicide bombers? Fine with Americans, a big no-no in the Middle East.

The Israelis could be massacring the Palestinians if they really wanted to be oppressive. Perhaps you should turn your attention to someplace like Sudan if you want real oppression.

You obviously have no idea what has and is going on in the occupied territories.

You obviously have no idea what has and is going on in the occupied territories.

I realize. But if anyone expects anything to change than they better stop sending suicide bombers into Israel. Otherwise they will definately remain occupied. I am not going to blame either side in the situation there, it is impossible to do so. Both have responsibility. But I hear "Zionist regime" from you and I can see that you are too biased to realize this.

There are probably thousands of them, and they're not confined to any particular city. You can hardly bomb them all.
True, but we probably could shoot quite a few.
If they're particularly zealous fundraisers, I'm not sure if they're still civilians anyway.
They're not serving in a military.

Well that was sobering. I'm going to go drown myself in caffinne.sobering indeed.

sobering indeed.

Get ultra sugar high, that might help, and the end result would be funny.:p