TWO


and 75% of them have joined the rosie o'donnell club and believe it was not Arabs who were responsible
for the attacks on September 11, 2001

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 9:01 PM. Reason : editing]

5/23/2007 9:00:43 PM

^didn't we already establish that it was the Bush administration that was behind 9/11?

5/23/2007 9:05:47 PM

And 100% of the people above me haven't yet explained why this entire thread isn't based on a false premise

5/23/2007 9:59:24 PM

After reading the story, this doesn't scare me at all.

More non-Muslim Americans are probably okay with bombing civilians from the air.

5/23/2007 10:03:06 PM

The poll clearly has some flaws. Another question I would ask is what constitutes suicide bombing? Would, for example, Davy Crockett blowing himself up at the Alamo to keep the amunition cache from falling into enemy hands (I realize this is disputed by historians, but for the sake of argument) be considered suicide bombing? What about a WWII piolet being shot down crashing his fully loaded bomber into a Nazi fortification, or fuel dump or supply depot? These are actions that in their own contexts I would consider acceptable, but could possibley be interpreted as suicide bombing by some (although I would dissagree).

Also, did the poll only encompass Muslims, or were other groups included for comparison? I couldn't get the link to work.

I saw things in Iraq that any reasonable person would consider suicide bombings. Let me tell you, there is never any justification for strapping an IED to your chest and walking into a crowded market or driving a car full of semtex into a building full of non-combatants. I absolutely believe that at least some of those polled understood these types of actions to be what they were talking about and still said they could be justified (although perhaps not condoned). While that does not sit well with me, I'm not going to rush to judgement based on this poll given the flaws listed above and elsewhere in this thread. I think more data is needed before I can make an informed decision on how I feel about this.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/24/2007 4:09:34 AM

thank god for Boone and his infinite high school teacher wisdom to declare to all that this poll is worthless and the topic is therefore not even worth discussing

5/24/2007 10:52:36 AM

I didnt' see anywhere where Boone said the topic wasn't worth discussing.

5/24/2007 12:14:27 PM

i assumed it from this

Quote :

"Were you surprised to discover that the entire premise for your thread was false?"

he at minimum says the poll is completely worthless...like he's some kind of expert

5/24/2007 12:15:56 PM

[No] Stop trolling.

5/24/2007 12:18:06 PM

...says the alias troll

you want to comment on the topic at hand or just act like the little bitch that you always act like

your dumb ass probably doesnt think Boone thinks that poll is worthless

5/24/2007 12:24:00 PM

a lot of you seem to have difficulty grasping the reality of the situation. the reality is that some people believe that it is justified. now you can sit here and say "that's horrible, that's pathetic, you shouldn't believe it's justified". fact of the matter is, THEY think it is and THAT's the reality that WE have to work solutions around

5/24/2007 12:27:51 PM

Quote :

"your dumb ass probably doesnt think Boone thinks that poll is worthless"

Whether he thinks the poll is worthless or not has no bearing on whether or not the topic is worth discussing. Get your arguments straight, and then maybe someone will take you seriously.

5/24/2007 12:37:27 PM

Quote :

"It asked whether or not suicide bombing was ever justified, anywhere, in any circumstance-- making the poll completely worthless. But that didn't stop the NY Post (or you) from twisting it into "OMG 26% OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS SUPPORT TERRORISM!!1""

I didn't twist one damn thing. I just repeated something, that should be pretty obvious to you since I JUST said I didn't read the article. And yes, I agree that poll is worthless if those are the terms.

5/24/2007 1:02:20 PM

I think the poll is worthless. We need to know how the results compare to non-muslim Americans.

It's pretty clear the exact meaning of the questions can change for different individuals, so it would be difficult to rationally the group for their responses, without having something to compare it to.

5/24/2007 1:48:39 PM

While the poll is meaningless (at least give us some other groups to compare with), I find the discussion of suicide bombing in this thread laughable. While it is certainly more troubling and hard to deal with, from a military and criminal justice point of view (our entire system being predicated on the fact that the perpetrators have a fear of imprisonment or death), there are absolutely circumstances in which suicide bombing would be justified.

If the US had been invaded, would you oppose suicide bombing if it could turn the tide of the battle?

As for comparisons to other demographics, a quick googling shows that last January, 54% of Americans approved of the war in Iraq--this number is much lower now, probably closer to 24-30%, but I am just picking an arbitrary point. Now, this doesn't involve suicide per se, or active targeting of noncombatants, but the fact is that our army has suffered numerous casualties and the Iraqis have lost countless civilian lives.

It follows, then, that unless the group surveyed was largely ignorant of the nature of this war--war in general, really--then they approve of, not in some hypothetical "rare" circumstance, but in real world terms, the loss of American soldiers' lives in combat and the loss of Iraqi civilians' lives as well. They support it as a means to an end, whatever that end might be.

I can't really see why so many people find being willing to die for what you believe in to be so horrifying.

5/24/2007 2:30:10 PM

"being willing to die for what you believe in" != having a 100% chance of dying for what you believe in assuming the bomb goes off

5/24/2007 2:33:04 PM

At what probability of survival does it become acceptable?

5/24/2007 2:34:48 PM

well most of the time in a military operation, however dangerous the mission, there is a chance that you could survive

the only chance a suicide bomber has of surviving is if there is a malfunction and the bomb doesnt go off

i dunno...how about a 1% chance of survival? cause excluding a bomb malfunction, suicide bombers dont have a single chance of survival

just dont equivocate "willing to do for what you believe in" with suicide bombings cause they're not the same thing at all

would you do something for your infant son/daughter or your wife that might get you killed? sure, because its something you believe in / care about...thats putting your life on the line for something you believe in

thats not automatically sacrificing your life for the false wishes of 373,248 virgins

5/24/2007 2:37:36 PM

Quote :

""being willing to die for what you believe in" != having a 100% chance of dying for what you believe in assuming the bomb goes off "

In the context of a war, I don't see why that's a meaningful distinction.

5/24/2007 2:37:37 PM

ok well when you are at war maybe your commander will tell you to blow yourself up to take out some enemies and you can see if the distinction seems meaningful then

5/24/2007 2:40:16 PM

Was the poll about people being forced to blow themselves up or people choosing to blow themselves up?

Quote :

"i dunno...how about a 1% chance of survival? cause excluding a bomb malfunction, suicide bombers dont have a single chance of survival"

Let's say that K-Mart sells a shitty suicide bomb kit with a 2% rate of failure. Then it's okay?

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 2:41:46 PM

If it specified, I missed that part

But according to Mostafa Basraoui, suicide is forbidden in Islam...not that suicide bombers seem to really give much of a fuck about anything except what they've been brainwashed to believe

If all you're doing is looking at net # of deaths then perhaps theres not much of a difference, but the subject is obviously more complex than just total # of deaths

^No its not ok...you're saying WHATS THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGHTING IN A DANGEROUS BATTLE AND PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE...its a shame you cant see the difference

5/24/2007 2:48:25 PM

Quote :

"ok well when you are at war maybe your commander will tell you to blow yourself up to take out some enemies and you can see if the distinction seems meaningful then "

First, that's not how suicide bombing works.

Secondly, if I were in a guerilla army fighting a losing war to defend my people and my culture, it's possible I would sign up for such a mission.

But, in our society, we have the resources where we don't have to resort to those tactics. But we probably would if we had to.

I bet if those muslims had tanks and airplanes and lots of manpower, you'd see the suicide bombings drop a lot.

5/24/2007 2:51:24 PM

^thats not how suicide bombing works? so there are no suicide bombings where the "commander" of the particular terror cell or whatever says "hey Ahmed...use this bomb to kill infidels for Allah"?

Quote :

"I bet if those muslims had tanks and airplanes and lots of manpower, you'd see the suicide bombings drop a lot."

they dont seem to have a problem making IEDs and finding plenty of guns and explosives

While I agree that technologically superior weaponry like tanks and airplanes may reduce the number of suicide bombers, its not simply a "best alternative" scenario...they're wacked out in their heads from being brainwashed since they are children

5/24/2007 2:53:11 PM

Quote :

"they dont seem to have a problem making IEDs and finding plenty of guns and explosives"

The "i" in IED is "improvised" they wouldn't have to improvise if they had an actual, capable army. The IEDs are yet another symptom of their hopelessness, in the same vein as suicide bombings.

On top of that, their numbers are still too small to form an army to use real weapons.

Quote :

"While I agree that tehnologically superior weaponry like tanks and airplanes may reduce the number of suicide bombers, its not simply a "best alternative" scenario...they're wacked out in their heads from being brainwashed since they are children"

Well, if you are grossly overpowered in a war, you're 3 options are to:
1- Fight until you're dead
2- Give up
3- Fight dirty

They're not going to give up, and they would fight until you're dead, but if that's the case, you might as well fight dirty. So in a significant way, it IS a "best alternative" scenario.

There are actually suicide bombers who failed that have been interviewed, and they are whacked out, but they're not outright insane. Usually, they're paid well, and their families get the money, which is a big reason why they do it (not too different than people who kill themselves thinking their families get a life insurance pay out) on top of the desperation they feel.

Quote :

"thats not how suicide bombing works? so there are no suicide bombings where the "commander" of the particular terror cell or whatever says "hey Ahmed...use this bomb to kill infidels for Allah"?"

No, that's not how it works. It's a long process of brainwashing and "meditating" that they go through. It's not like a regular military hierarchy where some leader just tells some soldiers "hey, go strap this bomb to yourself." Their militia men are no more insane than our military people. The suicide bombers are a special group that goes through special training for the one purpose of suicide bombing.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 3:01:15 PM

Charging a machine gun nest and suicide bombing is the same mindset-- the fact that one provides an 98% chance of death and the other a 100% chance is not important.

Unless you want to be a nit-picky douche.

5/24/2007 3:11:22 PM

Jesus, like either of you know the process by which someone becomes a suicide bomber.

5/24/2007 3:11:44 PM

^ I know it's just not a random soldier randomly being ordered to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pek5xISalL8 <- interview with a failed suicide bomber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkBlhSNpHXo <- interview with a guy who made documentaries about suicide bombers
http://www.newscloud.com/read/Pierre_Rehov__The_Daily_Show <- Jon Stewart interviews the guy above

5/24/2007 3:25:55 PM

who said anything about a "random soldier"

i already said they were brainwashed since children...but out of the brainwashed group why wouldnt a leader tell one of them to "do this for Allah"

you think they all do it as their own individual idea or something?

5/24/2007 3:35:42 PM

^ You made it seem like you meant they could just order any muslim solider to kill themselves. If that's not you meant, then we're on the same page WRT that.

5/24/2007 3:45:53 PM

yeah thats not exactly what i meant...but from the large group of muslims willing to do something like this from their past/perpetual brainwashing, it would seem likely that a higher-up could tell one of them "this is your time" and essentially order them to do it...but anyways,/]

5/24/2007 3:47:24 PM

Bin Laden optimistically claims he has "200" people ready to suicide bomb at any time. I wouldn't consider this a "large group" Considering Afghanistan had 100-something suicide bomb attacks in a year.

Your run of the mill muslim is not trained to or prepared to suicide bomb.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 3:52:33 PM

again, i'm not trying to claim that any muslim is willing to do this

but lets say usama has a group of 200...couldnt he probably go up to a couple and tell them to do it and they would?

and maybe 200 people by itself isnt a large group...but 100 suicide bombers a year is a high number

5/24/2007 3:54:48 PM

Yeah, probably.

5/24/2007 3:55:55 PM

I am really confused by some of you saying that suicide bombing is justified. Are you referring to specific instances such as someone walking to a green zone check point and killing two soldiers (military targets)? Are you referring to a suicide bomber walking into a crowded market and taking as many civilians as possible with him to the grave? If you are at all referring to a suicide bomber killing innocent people and saying that it is justified then you should fucking burn in hell. Killing innocent people is not ever justified....PERIOD. So pull your fucking head out of your asses

5/24/2007 3:56:15 PM

^i think the crazies who are saying its justified sometimes are at least saying it should be military targets...i'll give them that much credit

5/24/2007 3:59:08 PM

Just to make things clear, jccraft1, are you saying that you are against any war whatsoever, or at least the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the "war on terror", and the current conflict in Iraq?

5/24/2007 4:00:43 PM

Quote :

"I am really confused by some of you saying that suicide bombing is justified."

It depends on what you mean by "justified" but no one is advocating suicide bombing here.

Quote :

" Are you referring to specific instances such as someone walking to a green zone check point and killing two soldiers (military targets)? Are you referring to a suicide bomber walking into a crowded market and taking as many civilians as possible with him to the grave?"

Neither one. No one is talking about any specific instances.

Quote :

"If you are at all referring to a suicide bomber killing innocent people and saying that it is justified then you should fucking burn in hell."

So you feel that you're special in believing that suicide bombers who kill innocents are bad people?

That's like saying you're against child rapists, who isn't?

Quote :

"Killing innocent people is not ever justified....PERIOD. "

I assume you feel that way about our armies too, right?

5/24/2007 4:01:18 PM

^^to give jccraft's perspective credit, i dont think those wars you listed have the INTENTIONAL killing of civilians

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ^^]

5/24/2007 4:01:42 PM

^ I'll definitely concede that. He did say "Killing innocent people is not ever justified," but if he meant INTENTIONALLY killing innocent people, that's quite different.

However, and I'll admit that I'm no expert, but wasn't the firebombing of Tokyo a calculated attack by America on the civilian population of Tokyo? And the atomic bombs used Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I mean, people can argue all day (and their whole lives/careers, really) about the causes, intents, and effects of those acts, but they certainly knowingly undertook those operations knowing full well there would be MASSIVE civilian casualties.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 4:03:18 PM

^^Perhaps you didn't read what jccraft said:

Quote :

" Killing innocent people is not ever justified....PERIOD. "

The "period" is even spelled out AND capitalized.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 4:03:32 PM

and doing something intentionally requires justification...accidents are accidents...you cant justify an accident because it wasnt intentional

5/24/2007 4:05:54 PM

When then should the response be to an action that regularly and predictably results in the killing of innocent people?

If you continue with the action, that would seem to implicitly justify it.

5/24/2007 4:09:28 PM

Killing innocent people by accident is different and I would hope everyone could distinguish between the two. I'm just glad I got that out of you all. It sounded like some of you all were admiting suicide bombers are justified in killing innocent civilian populations.

5/24/2007 4:09:32 PM

^ The 26% that is the topic of this thread likely feel the same way. Do you realize that now?

5/24/2007 4:11:58 PM

There was certainly the intentional killing of noncombatants in Japan in WWII. Are you opposed to what we accomplished with those tactics in WWII?

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 4:12:19 PM

Good point. Am I opposed to what we accomplished, No. Do I wish they would have surrendered without having to drop the bomb on innocent civilians, Yes.

5/24/2007 4:26:41 PM

Quote :

"Do I wish they would have surrendered without having to drop the bomb on innocent civilians, Yes."

We didn't HAVE do target civilians, though. We might have suffered greater losses as a result of failing to do that, but nobody was making us do it.

There just seems to be a fundamental difference between that and "Killing innocent people is not ever justified....PERIOD."

5/24/2007 4:36:13 PM

Are you saying that the killing of innocent victims to support a "military victory" for a certain state or group is justified?

5/24/2007 4:40:16 PM

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am very anti-war by nature, but all the same, if the death of a small number of civilians could prevent the deaths of a much larger group of civilians, I'd have a hard time arguing against it.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2007 4:43:28 PM