They have no problem with suicide bombings that kill innocent victims. If that doesn't scare you to the bone, I don't know what does.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232007/news/nationalnews/time_bombs_in_our_
midst_nationalnews_douglas_montero_and_andy_soltis.htm

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : k]

5/23/2007 2:47:58 PM

pardon me for not trusting a poll in the ny post.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : plus that link doesn't work]

5/23/2007 2:48:56 PM

maybe you didn't notice that they didn't conduct the poll? and that it was nationwide.

5/23/2007 2:50:04 PM

well since the link didn't work, no i didn't see that.

5/23/2007 2:50:40 PM

Quote :

"Page Not Found The page you are looking for cannot be found or does not exist on NYPOST.COM. If you are looking for an article that is more than 30 days old, please search our archives. Otherwise, please visit Last 30 Days for free access to the past four weeks of NYPOST.COM stories. CONTACT US To report a TECHNICAL problem, please fill out the form below, otherwise click here to send comments."

5/23/2007 2:51:37 PM

Quote :

"If that doesn't scare you to the bone, I don't know what does."

lol i guess tww has desensitized me or something?

if this were like "surprising" i might be scared

5/23/2007 2:51:40 PM

i knew it! Americans are for terrorism!

5/23/2007 2:52:12 PM

V---thanks man. I haven't used that site before.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : yay]

5/23/2007 2:52:52 PM

dude tinyurl is your friend

http://tinyurl.com/2pcuja

5/23/2007 2:53:49 PM

this is a Pew research poll, so the number is actually probably a lot higher than that

5/23/2007 2:54:55 PM

this poll also says that the united states has the lowest numbers for support of suicide bombing of the countries polled.

also the 26% is the number of people who think it is EVER justified, not that they have no problem, just if it could be ever justified. 60% of young american muslims said it was never justified. and of all the american muslims surveyed, 79% said suicide bombing was never justified.

5/23/2007 3:05:54 PM

Quote :

" But they said they can understand why foreign Muslims would sacrifice their lives against soldiers in conditions they consider "war." "If it's for no reason, then it's no good. If it's in self-defense, to protect others, then it is right," said Youns Hussein, a 21-year-old store owner from Brooklyn of Yemeni descent. The relatively high poll support for suicide attacks deeply worried many experts yesterday. "It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. The poll question didn't specify whether the suicide bombings being asked about would be in the United States or in other countries. "

So to answer your question. No, it doesn't scare me.

5/23/2007 3:06:31 PM

Let's see, these numbers include people who say it is acceptable "only on rare occasions." Hell, I can agree with that. That isn't to say I think that a situation that would justify it currently exists or has existed in the past, but I can abstractly conceive of such a scenario.

It's also young people, who are obviously going to be more prone to radical actions -- or, at least, claims to support radical action. Eventually they grow up, get jobs, and move towards the center.

I'm sure we'll eventually get suicide bombers in this country, but I'm equally sure that they'll probably be few, scattered, and almost completely disorganized.

5/23/2007 3:16:56 PM

looks like its time to go Aussie on 'em.

5/23/2007 3:24:02 PM

I guess then 25% of them agree to wanting do die. That's not a good sign. I wonder what the percentages would be for other religions. I would venture to guess that it would be significantly smaller. What does that say about Islam?

Kind of hard to say that 25% is a small minority of Islamic fanatics. That argument used to work but its pretty obvious that its becoming more and more mainstream within the religion. So, how do you fix it? I have no fucking clue.

5/23/2007 3:29:47 PM

I'm guessing you didn't read any of the actual poll, or, if you did, you had no understanding whatsoever of its contents.

5/23/2007 3:33:17 PM

most muslims don't want people to think they're hostile, so many of them would not admit they support homicide bombings because they wouldn't want news like this to come out

so i'd say the number is actually a lot higher


[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM. Reason : /]

5/23/2007 3:44:48 PM

Quote :

"Let's see, these numbers include people who say it is acceptable "only on rare occasions." Hell, I can agree with that. "

name a scenario...name a rare occasion where you think a suicide bombing is acceptable...i'd love to hear this

5/23/2007 3:51:41 PM

^yeah, that was a pretty dumb statement.

5/23/2007 3:53:24 PM

Seems like some people think that a suicide bombing HAS to kill innocents.

5/23/2007 3:54:33 PM

Kamakazi planes in WWII didn't kill innocent people...well from a military stand point....they mostly targeted carriers and other military targets.

5/23/2007 3:57:24 PM

Grumpy I hope you weren't talking to me because I understood that survey completely. It's fairly easy to comprehend.

5/23/2007 3:59:26 PM

Quote :

"name a scenario...name a rare occasion where you think a suicide bombing is acceptable...i'd love to hear this"

Well, as has been stated, a suicide bombing does not have to have a civilian target, and any time where an important blow can be dealt to an enemy military at the cost of only one life -- and only when no other viable option presents itself -- strikes me as perfectly legitimate. I shouldn't think most of our objections to suicide bombing come from the "suicide" part. When taking out a target, what is the real, meaningful difference between losing a man to enemy fire and losing him to what is, in effect, friendly fire? Especially when he signed on for the job?

But, as to civilian targets, a similar logic presents itself. The United States has, on a number of occasions, struck at civilian targets in an effort to hasten the end of a conflict and bring about what is presumably a just peace. A suicide bomber is at least claiming to be doing the same thing through different means. Since I agree with some of the American actions, I am forced to allow that, at least in some cases, the targetting of civilians is allowable. Since I don't give a damn whether a willing person has to commit suicide in the process, the method is not anathema to me.

Of course, you may well be opposed to all targetting of civilians, which would be a valid argument in this case, but one that I think should probably be addressed elsewhere.

My reasons for not supporting suicide bombing as we actually see it happening today is that I believe:

A) The suicide bombers end is not a "just peace."
B) The suicide bombings are clearly and obviously not hastening the end to the conflict, but rather exacerbating it.

Quote :

"Grumpy I hope you weren't talking to me because I understood that survey completely."

Then how the hell do you get "they agree to wanting to die?" No where in it does it say anything of the sort. Among other things, there is the vast gulf between wanting and being willing to die. I suspect you could find a large number of people in any religion that would at least claim to be willing to die for their faith, though perhaps not in a capacity that is outwardly as well as inwardly violent.

Quote :

"Kind of hard to say that 25% is a small minority of Islamic fanatics."

It's just 25% of young Muslims. It was 13% or so for the general Muslim population in this country. And you insist on overlooking the part where the majority of those respondents said they might rarely be justifiable.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : and I'll completely ignore the rabid anti-Muslim sentiment apparent in your comments]

5/23/2007 4:27:02 PM

Quote :

"majority of those respondents said they might rarely be justifiable."

yeah, but I bet they think the Iraq or Israel situations would fall under rarely.


either way you spin it, its disturbing.

5/23/2007 4:28:22 PM

I suppose they might interpret it that way, but as common as they are there I don't think you'd call that "rarely."

And of course, it's disturbing any time anybody thinks someone needs to be blown up, and this coming from a person who pretty much always thinks that about at least somebody. But it's not unusually bad.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2007 4:32:39 PM

you sir, are a fucking idiot

5/23/2007 4:36:37 PM

Grumpy I think I see where you're going as if somebody was supposed to assassinate bin Ladin and they happened to die in the process, you could call it a "suicide mission"

And I think if you're talking about bombing soldiers/combatants its certainly better than bombing innocent civilians

I just think in the "suicide mission" against bin Ladin that I mentioned, theres still a chance the sniper or whoever survives...but when you blow yourself up, you KNOW you're going to die...that whole mentality is the problem and if more pervasive in our society, I think we would all be scared or at least overly cautious and aware of the possibility

But again, its one thing to send some men into a hostile territory with a difficult mission and expect some of them to not come out alive...its another to know for a 100% fact that if you indeed detonate the bomb attached to yourself, you will undoubtedly die

5/23/2007 4:42:53 PM

Hahaha... as always, GrumpyGOP pwns all of the "compassionate conservatives"in here!

And when I read "Grumpy I hope you weren't talking to me", I let out a slight laugh, and I thought about telling him not to hope, but I thought there is no need because I knew Grumpy would come in and set the record straight, and he did it in spectacular fashion!

5/23/2007 4:43:22 PM

how exactly is saying you understand the need for suicide bombers in rare circumstances pwning the shit out of "compassionate conservatives"? i guess you must be speaking from the middle eastern perspective, even though the thread is about "Muslim AMERICANS"

5/23/2007 4:45:18 PM

Quote :

"When taking out a target, what is the real, meaningful difference between losing a man to enemy fire and losing him to what is, in effect, friendly fire?"

psyche of the remaining soldiers......if you'll notice people that call for suicide bombings go to great lengths to portray it in a favorable light (not completely unlike the way people in this survey said rarely, if necessary). There is a big difference in having a comrade go on a mission where he might die than realizing your superiors are supporting suicide for you and your peers, effectively using your fellow soldiers as only a means to an end.

5/23/2007 5:00:42 PM

so, if the odds are unfavorable, is one supposed to surrender?

5/23/2007 5:05:16 PM

some of the people in this thread's comments are pretty disturbing

5/23/2007 5:10:23 PM

Quote :

"Grumpy I think I see where you're going as if somebody was supposed to assassinate bin Ladin and they happened to die in the process, you could call it a "suicide mission""

Um...not quite, but OK. I'm a bit surprised to find that our primary point of contention is that you see the "suicide" part as being more worrisome than the "bombing" part, which clearly makes no sense to me.

I understand that, as you say, "it is another thing to know for a 100% fact that . . . you will die," at least in the mechanics of the process, and I understand that it does point to an underlying difference in psychology of the two forces. I don't, however, think it's morally relevant. If suicide bombing is wrong, it is not because they die, but because they kill.

Quote :

"if you'll notice people that call for suicide bombings go to great lengths to portray it in a favorable light"

Every society that has ever gone to war does the exact same thing to portray killing others in a positive light. So this must not have anything to do with what makes suicide bombing more wrong than good old fashioned killin'.

Quote :

"There is a big difference in having a comrade go on a mission where he might die than realizing your superiors are supporting suicide for you and your peers, effectively using your fellow soldiers as only a means to an end."

Why do you assume they realize this at all? And in war all superiors are using you only as a means to an end. Sure, most of the time they'd like to keep as many alive as possible, but that's as much so that they can kee using them and save face as it is for any sentimental reason.

5/23/2007 5:16:25 PM

Quote :

"If suicide bombing is wrong, it is not because they die, but because they kill. "

no its because of both

and yes it is fucking wrong, theres no "ifs" about it...no need to speculate

5/23/2007 5:19:43 PM

When that tibetan dude immolated himself, nobody was screaming, "That horrible, inhuman bastard!"

5/23/2007 5:27:41 PM

^^is suicide more wrong because it's more scary to you? or maybe because it's much harder to prevent?

5/23/2007 5:28:54 PM

^^and when saddam was killed nobody thought it was the wrong thing to do

what you seem to be ignoring is the relevance of the psychological aspect of convincing your own people to knowingly kill themselves...its completely against the human nature of survival to kill yourself

do you have a specific instance of when suicide bombing might be acceptable? not just saying "when no other viable option presents itself"...give me a scenario since you agree that its acceptable on rare occasions

^probably both...but when you're dealing with an enemy who doesnt care about their own life, there are huge problems...it means he is irrational...at least soldiers who kill the enemies "traditionally" (ie not suicide bombers) have a survival instinct...they value their own lives...suicide bombers dont even value survival which makes no sense and basically means they're crazy...you cant predict what a crazy person will do

5/23/2007 5:31:19 PM

so it's not that it's more wrong just more unpredictable?

5/23/2007 5:33:26 PM

i'm not gonna feed the troll

5/23/2007 5:34:56 PM

i'm asking legitimate questions here.

5/23/2007 5:36:08 PM

Quote :

"so it's not that it's more wrong just more unpredictable?"

IT IS MORE WRONG

there are a variety of reasons...how come nobody can come up with a scenario where they would be ok with a suicide bombing? dont shy away from your opinions now...

5/23/2007 5:38:30 PM

Can we all agree that TKE-Teg's thread and the NY Post's article are both disgustingly dishonest?

I mean, we can argue the finer points of whether suicide can be justified, but I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page as far as the OP is concerned.

5/23/2007 5:45:42 PM

terminally ill soldier who wants to do one last good thing for his country and go out in a bang to be remembered for all time.

OR how about that one time Jack Bauer had to fly a Cessna carrying a nuke and blow himself up to save countless lives?

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 5:47 PM. Reason : tv show FTW]

5/23/2007 5:46:21 PM

^^^well. why is it more wrong? i personally don't see suicide as wrong. i see murder as wrong. i also understand that under certain circumstances, killing can help the common good. for instance, killing to keep someone from killing others.

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2007 5:56:37 PM

Quote :

"its completely against the human nature of survival to kill yourself"

It's completely against human nature to put yourself in the sort of danger that war entails, too. Read "Catch-22," for fuck's sake.

Quote :

"do you have a specific instance of when suicide bombing might be acceptable?"

This is a very feeble trap you're attempting to lay. If I go into the narrative of providing you with a situation, you will sit there and attack the minutiae of it without ever dealing at all with the ideas behind it. Suicide bombing is acceptable in any situation that meets these criteria, in order**:

1) Its use is intended to, and has a reasonable chance of succeding in, hastening the end of a conflict and the establishment of a just peace.

2) Its intended effects on enemy resolve and morale as a whole cannot conceivably be brought about, with any probability, through other means.

3) Its intended effects on the specific target (in other words, as a destructive tool) cannot conceivably be brought about, with any probability, through other means.

4) The bombing itself can conceivably bring about its desired ends with some degree of probability.

5) The bomber has volunteered for the mission with an understanding of what it means for his life.

Now, since it does not strike me as impossible (though perhaps as highly unlikely) that a situation would satisfy these criteria, I can say that I can, in fact, envision a scenario in which I would find suicide bombing justifiable.


**-I reserve the right to add to that list, I tried to cover all my bases but it'd be like me to forget some obvious thing that would leave my point intact but give you an opportunity to say "Oh you didn't say this now you have to backtrack lolz"

5/23/2007 6:08:14 PM

>26% of yng christian AMERICANS are for collateral bombin that kills innocent bictims

5/23/2007 6:54:08 PM

hmm, got a more favorable reponse in this thread than I thought I would. A few surprises too.

5/23/2007 7:46:53 PM

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

5/23/2007 7:58:02 PM

Based on whats here, I have no idea what you're talking about. Though I will admit that I did not read the full article before posting, and still haven't. I saw it on the news this morning, and didn't have time to read it during the day. However, I thought it'd be interesting to see discussion in here about it, thus I started a thread on it. Was surprised there wasnt already one actually.

5/23/2007 8:06:53 PM

The poll didn't ask "do you support suicide bombing in Israel/Iraq/wherever"

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"

[Edited on May 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2007 8:11:13 PM