I came across this polling from Gallup (8/2/11) while I was looking to debunk the nutty idea that Muslim Americans never criticize terrorism.
As the Gallup poll shows, of all religious groups surveyed–including nonbelievers–Muslims are the least likely to say it’s OK to kill civilians:
This is true whether the question is asked about individuals doing the killing or the government:
What stays with me about this polling, though, is not how unwilling Muslims are to kill civilians, but how eager everyone else is. Fifty-eight percent of both Protestants and Catholics say it’s “sometimes justified” for the military to “target and kill civilians.” And 64 percent of Mormons! Only Muslims and nonbelievers more often than not say it’s never OK.
And terrorism, which you think would poll down there with child abuse and animal cruelty, actually has a pretty solid following among Americans. More than one out of four Catholics and Protestants, and about one in five Jews, Mormons and nonbelievers say it’s “sometimes justified” for “an individual person or a small group of people” to go on a people hunt.
Where do people get ideas like this? I haven’t been to church in a while, but I don’t remember my Catholic priest telling me that what Jesus would do was carpet bomb. You’re also unlikely to hear a government official endorsing a policy of intentionally killing civilians. (Well, not usually.)
In corporate media, though, you do sometimes hear pundits professing that civilians ought to face the wrath of the United States. This was a common theme in Kosovo commentary. And even more widespread in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Beloved radio talker Paul Harvey used to wax nostalgic about American genocide, and wise man Ted Koppel urged nuclear retaliation against Iran for any act of nuclear terrorism–whether it came from Iran or not. Even discussing whether the U.S. was right to deliberately kill tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is viewed in media circles as unpatriotic.
As for civilians doing the killing, you get a surprising amount of support for the idea for political killing from the media–from Fox News and other right-wing talk hosts, but also from the ultra-respectable Ted Koppel, who once mused on air that whether doctors who perform abortions should be murdered was a “tough question.” The guest he was having the discussion with went on to do just that.
Mere supposition on my part, but I think the lopsided numbers for American Muslims may be a defensive reaction to how they’re falsely portrayed, rather than evidence of their being that much more opposed to terrorism, from any source. It might be interesting to see if the results held for Muslims outside the West, who in general haven’t been subjected to the same sort of vilification in their own countries.
It’s a terribly constructed question, though. What does “Depends” mean? Under what circumstances are killing civilians “sometimes” justified?
I can conceive of an extreme hypothetical situation in which I might answer in the affirmative, as a lesser evil and as an absolute last resort, but that is wholly disconnected from how the killing of civilians occurs in reality
Or how that action is blessed by the corpress, when it is perpetrated by our government.
Interesting; Muslims and Agnostics are the most moral folks around. I knew about agnostics — I´m one, and I know what I believe and what my super xtian neighbors spout. But Muslims? Good for you, folks. Keep on being moral, and screw all the detractors, most of whom don´t know what the hell they´re talking about when discussing morality. Or patriotism, for that matter.
Media support for punishment of civilians, lethal or not, increases in particular when Israel launches a war against Gaza.
Nice example of witch-hunting in the excreble posing legitimacy gain from opposiing Muslims with Catholic. Koppel looks good to die like Roger Ebert. Enough is enough with a face that sad.
Think we all might need to have moustaches on you harelips.
That’s not a word, are you?
Come back out of Google.
That’s a good door.
Are you Wired ? I want sex with it.
I want it swept under the rug.
I expect the serape to continue to deliver three dimensional fish spaced according to the oohs and the ahhhs.
Biased Poll.It was all about the wording.Never believe we have as much to fear from any other group as we do from radical Muslims.When a bomb goes off, believe me the FBI wont be looking for rabbi Stein.Or Father Murphy.Or the hari krishnas.Or Tom cruise and scientolagists.Or a Buddist monk and his followers.While it is true that most Muslims are not terrorists,it is also true that most terrorists today are muslim.The head of the Muslim world conference last week said 41% of his people believe in Jehad worldwide.Take that in your suicide vest and smoke it.
The authors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have little room to talk here. These bombs were supposed to save lives by bringing a quick end to the war. That justification could belong to any nation contemplating a costly military maneuver. Yet, dissent about our use of the A-Bomb is outside the channels of acceptable political discourse in the USA.
A Britisher recently hypothesized about what Thatcher, in current times, would do to the US citizens who gave financial support to the IRA or its political arm during her bloody occupation of Northern Ireland. This Britisher noted that under the rules of engagement as defined by Bush and Obama, these US citizens were unabashedly guilty of “supporting” the Irish Revolutionary Army and its “associated forces”, the Sinn Fein. Many a New Englander remembers that after every British atrocity against Catholics in Northern Ireland, Irish-American activists would pass the bucket in Irish pubs to raise money for the the folks who opposed British occupation. And they weren’t called out for terrorism when they sent that money across the ocean to support the anti-occupation cause.
Today, that sort of activity would give legal grounds to a drone strke, though it is doubtful that the Uncle Sam would let John Bull target the ones who oppose white-on-white occupation. Just a thought, here, but if you want to apply the rules evenly, we would have to concede that our own are legitimate targets, at least according to this Britisher.
Never believe we have as much to fear from any other group as we do from radical Muslims. _ Michel e
.
Than explain this: That tumultuous decade saw 60 to 70 terrorist incidents, mostly bombings, on U.S. soil every year—a level of terrorist activity 15 to 20 times that seen in the years since 9/11, even when foiled plots are counted as incidents.
…
RAND’s chronology of terrorism, which records 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three of which were clearly connected with the jihadist cause.
________________________________________________________
The scale of the September 11, 2001, attacks tended to obliterate America’s memory of pre-9/11 terrorism, yet measured by the number of terrorist attacks, the volume of domestic terrorist activity was much greater in the 1970s. That tumultuous decade saw 60 to 70 terrorist incidents, mostly bombings, on U.S. soil every year—a level of terrorist activity 15 to 20 times that seen in the years since 9/11, even when foiled plots are counted as incidents. And in the nine-year period from 1970 to 1978, 72 people died in terrorist incidents, more than five times the number killed by jihadist terrorists in the United States in the almost nine years since 9/11.
…
The contrast between the level of terrorist violence in the United States today and that in the 1970s is indicated in RAND’s chronology of terrorism, which records 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three of which were clearly connected with the jihadist cause. (The RAND database includes Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas Day attempt to detonate a bomb on an airplane.) The other jihadist plots were interrupted by authorities. In addition to the jihadist attacks, this total includes the anthrax letters sent in late 2001, which killed five people, as well as numerous low-level attacks by environmental extremists (38) and animal-rights fanatics (12), which account for most of the violence. In all, 24 people were killed between 9/11 and the end of 2009, including the 13 who died at Fort Hood.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP292.pdf
“Pad and John” what can I say but talk to the hand!You are playing with numbers and history trying to point out how rotten we are(and the Brits),and in effect saying a few things.One……we deserve what we get.Two…we and our Democratic friends are just as bad.Three the radical muslim threat is over emphasized .Look go lull somebody else to sleep with this hash.You are either duplicitous,or just to dumb to see the wolf at the door.
The only terrorist are the Government terrorist. The only thing anyone has to fear, is the Governments of Earth. It is the Governments of Earth that kill hundreds of millions of People in the last 100 years alone. The Government are the terrorist. It has been this way since the genocide of the Indians in North America, and is the same today with the Genocide of Arabs in the East, followed with the Genocide of Americans shortly. The Government are the terrorist.
I am appalled at how many have embraced our govt’s view of killing civilians. The mind reorientation is working. They are being conditioned to accept it.
Look go lull somebody else to sleep with this hash.You are either duplicitous,or just to dumb to see the wolf at the door.
Yes, we should go because it is apparent you are asleep even with your eyes open and won’t care if the truth jumps you from behind. Your obvious a paid Corporate Moron Troll that will willing call Black as White, then reverse that position and Call white black as long as Your Corporate master tell you.
I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find out that you also are unable to distinguish Summer from Winter, and since you didn’t even try to justify your nonsense screed, this tells me you have no interest in reality or the truth. Too bad.
So ya, I think I will talk to your hand, because there isn’t a brain cell in your head.
This site looks so great , I am new here .
Of course Muslim Americans aren’t going to support military killing civilians, seeing as the majority of civilian deaths from the US military have been other muslims. They are also very aware of the reputation of their on their religion and are careful not play into it. Ask this question in muslim majority nations and you’ll get very different results. Take Pews polls from 2010 & 2013 for example…
The Koran commands the faithful never to kill non-combatants a dozen times, focusing particularly on condemning the killing of women and children.
It’s no shock Muslims oppose something their holy book denounces again, and again, and again. The entire Christian concept of “Chivalry”, the idea that women and children should be spared the horrors of war, was something the Crusaders brought home. It was a brand new idea in Europe.
The God (or G-D) of the Old Testament commands the faithful to murder women and children time after time. “Blessed is he who dashed the heads of their infants upon the rocks”. You won’t find that in the Koran.
MOST CELEBRATED OF P T H C
SELF-RULING DOWNLOADS
http://goo.gl/wDvQ4M
WITHOUT SHIBBOLETH DIFFERENT LINKS
The Survey says statistically they say they are less likely. Yet the facts show the group actually does commit more acts of violence against civilians. So I find action speaks louder than words.
Also, to attack civilians may be to attack a civilian terrorist group. As such, the action may be against antagonists. For example, ISIS is a civilian group. And many terrorist groups are in areas they control and act from the cover of a civilian community. Yet, the civilian targets of the terrorist extremists are non aggressive soft targets not related to military or other aggression.