Apples to oranges. How can anybody make the case for moral equivalence between the innocent victims of a deliberate suicide bombing and civilian casualties resulting from targeting terrorists? Granted, in both circumstances the victims are just as dead, but intent has to be considered, IMO. There are also good reasons for being skeptical about the number of "civilians" killed in anti-terror operations. (Recall the discredited Soros-funded estimate of civilian casualities in the Iraq War.) I have a feeling that terrorists usually hide among people who support their agendas and those are the civilians most likely to be caught in the crossfire.

 

An equivalent question for Christians would be whether the deliberate killing of innocent civilians (men, women, and children) is sometimes a justifiable response to the enemies of Christianity.

 

I think I can see that it is a little more apples to oranges as you say. Intent is important.

 

As to the last paragraph, I think it is going to be hard to justify killing through biblical means. I think the NT is pretty clear about Christianity's response to threat and harm. A human response is different and more in lines of what you are getting at but a biblical justification just isn't there IMHO.

 

I know that last paragraph was to find a similar question but my rant above was for anyone trying to justify this kind of war biblically. (sorry if I've gotten off the thread)

Apples to oranges. How can anybody make the case for moral equivalence between the innocent victims of a deliberate suicide bombing and civilian casualties resulting from targeting terrorists? Granted, in both circumstances the victims are just as dead, but intent has to be considered, IMO.

 

I agree, but the wording of this question does not lend itself to that argument. If it’s a valid question, and one that proves a certain percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then it should be easily asked of any other group. The question is worded “Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified…?” Intent or justification is not asked. If your standard for being terrorist is an affirmative answer to that question, then that standard should be applied to a similarly worded question asked of other groups, such as “Violence against civilian targets in order to win the war on terror can be justified…?” As we have it, there is no means of comparison; we are surmising results outside the scope of the question.

 

Again, what is the intent of conjecturing how many Muslims are extremists?

I just read the following in the book "Terrorist Hunter" by Anonymous (Rita Katz I believe is who wrote it, but that information was not released when the book was).

 

al-Muhajiroun, the Immigrants, is a U.K. based group with a branch in New York. This group held a rally in front of the UN building on April 28, 2001, less than six months before 9-11. Kamran Bokhari, head of the New York office of al-Muhajiroun, said at that rally: "We are only a few here, but we have a billion Muslims behind the jihad...Although you may see a few before you, one day we will liberate all Muslim lands. One day you will see the flag of Islam over the White House! Allahu Akhbar!" Bokhari then led his followers into chanting "Hizballah, Hizballah, Hizballah," and, "We support Bin Laden! We support Bin Laden! We support Bin Laden! What do we want? Jihad! What do we want? jihad jihad jihad!

I realize he was exaggerating how many Muslims are in support of the "jihad" but I believe it is more than some realize.

So about 500 million are terrorists?

If given the chance, yes.

Really? 500 million? Wow.

 

(sarcasm off)

I agree, but the wording of this question does not lend itself to that argument. If it’s a valid question, and one that proves a certain percentage of Muslims are terrorists, then it should be easily asked of any other group. The question is worded “Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified…?” Intent or justification is not asked. If your standard for being terrorist is an affirmative answer to that question, then that standard should be applied to a similarly worded question asked of other groups, such as “Violence against civilian targets in order to win the war on terror can be justified…?” As we have it, there is no means of comparison; we are surmising results outside the scope of the question.

 

Again, what is the intent of conjecturing how many Muslims are extremists?

The intent is to demonstrate that Islamic extremism is a much larger threat than many Americans are willing to acknowledge. The question that Pew asked specifically mentions suicide bombing and yet a substantial number of respondents said that they supported such actions. In some cases, such as Nigeria, a majority of respondents said that they supported suicide bombings under some circumstances.

 

What really irks me is the people who claim, with no factual basis whatsoever, that Islamic extremism involves a tiny percentage of Muslims and then attempt to equate the threat of Islamic extremism to the threat of Christian extremism.

 

I acknowledge that most Muslims lead peaceful lives and are not threats to our way of life. However, Muslims who do cheer when Jews and Christians are slaughtered number in the tens of millions and the number may be much higher.

The intent is to demonstrate that Islamic extremism is a much larger threat than many Americans are willing to acknowledge. The question that Pew asked specifically mentions suicide bombing and yet a substantial number of respondents said that they supported such actions. In some cases, such as Nigeria, a majority of respondents said that they supported suicide bombings under some circumstances.

 

What really irks me is the people who claim, with no factual basis whatsoever, that Islamic extremism involves a tiny percentage of Muslims and then attempt to equate the threat of Islamic extremism to the threat of Christian extremism.

 

I acknowledge that most Muslims lead peaceful lives and are not threats to our way of life. However, Muslims who do cheer when Jews and Christians are slaughtered number in the tens of millions and the number may be much higher.

 

From the book "Terrorist Hunter"

 

Al-Qaeda, in the view of the Arab world, is fighting for a just Muslim cause. In U.S. senator John Kerry's words, from a June 2002 interview, "If you had an election tomorrow in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, Usama Bin Laden would win. They know it. We Know it. The world knows it."

 

A Gallup poll conducted less than six months after 9/11 showed that most residents of nine Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Kuwait, and saudi Arabia, resented the United States and described it as "ruthless". The majority of the people surveyed labeled U.S. military action in Afghanistan "morally unjustifiable." Sixty one percent said they did not believe Arab groups had carried out 9/11.

 

Also, the book points out that Saudi Arabia, while one of our "Allies" still supports terrorism to this day. Mainly in how the educate their young.

 

For example, fourth-graders in Saudi Arabia learn why the sword appears on their flag. "The sword stands for the Jihad for the sake of Allah," their textbooks say. Students learn poems like the following, taken from an eighth-grade textbook:

 

Attention Israel, We are a nation. One day our sword will harvest your head.

By the sword, our country will regain its right and its dignity.

 

In the sixth grade, one of the new words they learn is mujahed and its proper use in various sentences, including the singular and plural forms. Such sentences include "The mujahidoon won for the sake of Allah" and "Allah loves the mujahideen." In the seventh grade, in religious studies, Saudi children learn the meaning of Qur'anic verses. One says, "We have to be careful of the kufr (infidels) and we can ask Allah to destroy them in our prayers."

 

No wonder alarming numbers of Saudi kids absorb this Wahhabi education and start thinking about their future in terms of "What do I want to be when I BLOW up?"