Islam Versus The West

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center — part of its Global Attitudes Project for 2006 — a great divide exists betweeen the way Westerners and Muslims view eachother. While the views of either group rarely coincide with the other, the most notable findings of the survey relate to 9/11, and — specifically — who was behind the attacks.

9_1 As the graph indicates, solid majorities in Indonesia (65 percent), Turkey (59 percent), Egypt (59 percent) and Jordan (53 percent) continue to deny that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Strangely, those same countries enjoy relatively good relations with the United States.

Still, Muslims in Western countries harbor similar doubts as to who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Most notably, a clear majority of British Muslims continue to doubt that their coreligionists perpetrated the attacks. In Germany and Spain, a plurality of Muslims continue to deny the origins of the 9/11 attackers while only in France is the opposite true.

Perhaps the best way to understand this phenomenon is through the "kin-country syndrome" that  Samuel P. Huntington writes of in "The Clash of Civilizations.Huntington defines the syndrome as follows:

Groups or states belonging to one civilization that become involved in war with people from a different civilization naturally try to rally support from other members of their own civilization. As the post-Cold War world evolves, civilization commonality, what H. D. S. Greenway has termed the "kin-country" syndrome, is replacing political ideology and traditional balance of power considerations as the principal basis for cooperation and coalitions.

Of course, with all the evidence that exists in terms of the 9/11 attacks, it's hard to imagine that Muslims would continue to deny the religious identity of the perpetrators.

From the same Pew survey, the following graph illustrates the negative characteristics that either group associates with the other:

Traits_1

Apparently, neither side views the other too favorably. Among Western nations, British Muslims harbor the most negative views of Westerners across the board while the opposite is true among Muslims in Spain. Ironically, non-Muslims in Britain are among the most tolerable of Muslims while non-Muslims in Spain are the least tolerable.

Other notable findings of the Pew survey include:

* Majorities in the Muslim countries polled say the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections will be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. That position is solidly rejected in the non-Muslim
countries.

* Overwhelming majorities in Muslim countries blame the controversy over cartoons depicting Mohammed on Western disrespect for the Muslim religion.

The Associated Press, meanwhile, must have missed this survey -- or purposely overlooked it -- when they released "Muslims Address Silence on Europe Attacks " just yesterday. While the survey indicates that Muslims do not view their coreligionists as responsible for major terrorist attacks, the *sensitive* article argues that the contrary is true:

Europe's Muslims have remained largely silent in the face of terrorist attacks that have killed 254 people in Madrid, London and Amsterdam. Europeans want to know why.

Why have so few of them publicly condemned the train and bus bombings in Madrid and London? Why have so few spoken out against the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, killed because his work was considered an insult to Islam?

Talk to Europe's mainstream Muslims privately, however, and it turns out they have a lot to say.

Seek them out in the neighborhoods where they live and work -- in the outdoor markets and butcher shops that sell halal meat, in the book stores that display literature on Islam and the West, in the boutiques that promote Islamic dress codes, in the Turkish restaurants and smoky Tunisian teahouses, in their schools and youth clubs -- and they denounce, the vast majority unequivocally, attacks against civilians in both Europe and the United States.

The author of this ridiculous piece, Cheherezade Faramarzi, needs to reacquaint himself with reality. His argument aims at proving that non-Muslims are the intolerant ones while Muslims are simply misunderstood. The article continues:

For some of the more than five dozen Muslims interviewed for this story [does that make this article credible?] in Amsterdam, Paris and London, it's a sense of shame, or even guilt, that innocents have been killed in the name of Islam; they say those feelings make them seek to be "invisible." For those lucky enough to have jobs [because non-Muslims are so intolerant], there is little time to protest or even write letters to newspapers.

Are you getting a feel of the author's tone? This is Jihad Journalism at its finest.

Still, the author does make a valid point -- unwittingly no doubt -- that highlights the real problem:

Dutch Muslim rapper Yassine SB wrote a song about his anger over Van Gogh's murder but scrapped plans to perform it out of fear of being ostracized by the Islamic community.

In other words, the Islamic community is not so much troubled by terrorism as it is by the critics of terrorism.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 3:36 PM | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Comment #161663

Most Republicans still think Saddam Hussien did 9/11.

Just shows how sheep are sheep everywhere in the world.

Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #161666

If you read the article, it explains why Muslims said Muslims weren’t behind the attacks. It was pretty clear to me.

The same way we didn’t believe Christians were behind what Timothy McVey and his ilk did, because we felt they weren’t really Christians.

What you posted and the article you linked to aren’t diametrically opposed.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #161667

womanmarine,

I suggest you read the article more carefully. Muslims deny that *Arabs* were behind the attacks. Perhaps it was the Asians who carried them out.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #161669

Hey Aldous,
Do you have a source for your claim about Republican beliefs concerning Sadam.

Speaking of sheep it appears to me that most libs believe Bush Lied, and that Global Warming is caused my human activity.
Ta Ta

Posted by: Heads On Pikes at June 25, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #161670

Um, Dr. Politico:

I referred to the ARTICLE you linked to and quoted, not the STUDY. In the article that is not mentioned.

In case that confuses you, this is the article that I read, from YOUR link:

Here

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #161672

I wonder when the Dimocrats will wake up and realize murder of Americans by Muslims is a reality.

Oh I forget that they don’t consider themselves Americans but citizens of the world.

yaking point yaking point, yak yak yak,

sadam is good, bush is bad, Sadam not terrorist, American Soliders bad, Islam an alternate lifestyle, America bad, only Republicans think Sadam was involved with 9-11, Dimocrats are correct progressive thinkers.

come aldous and yaking point, yaking point, yak, yak, yak.

Maybe yall good ole boys need a new record as it has been proven he was involved, he just didn’t fly one of the planes. Is that what you mean he did not fly one of the planes so he could not have been involved?

yak, yak, yak, yak, yak………

Posted by: lm at June 25, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #161673

womanmarine,

I think you’re mistaken, but please specify which quote and which article you are referring to.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #161675

womanmarine,

Every piece of quoted text is correctly accounted for.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #161677

Dr. Politico:

Your claim that Muslims deny that Arabs were involved in the attack wasn’t addressed at all in the article I linked to.

Whether that is what your study says is another matter.

I was addressing the article you and I both linked to.

I think you are confusing apples and oranges.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #161678

One more small point:

Perhaps they denied that Arabs (Muslims) were responsible, because they don’t consider the terrorists true Muslims, as the article I linked to explained rather well.

I hope I’m not confusing you more.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #161680

womanmarine,

Look at the first graph provided in this post. The question that was asked (of Muslims only) is written on top:

“Did Arabs carry out 9/11 attacks?”

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #161681

Sorry, Dr. Politico, I’m done. You just don’t understand the nuance. And I did see it.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #161682

Also:

NY Times: “Muslims ‘Still in Denial’ About 9-11”
.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #161686

womanmarine,

“You just don’t understand the nuance.”

That’s not nuance, dear; it’s spin. Nice try, though.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #161687

It’s not spin, any more than Christians who didn’t think Timothy McVey was a Christian was spin.

The Muslims don’t identify with the terrorists as fellow Muslims. I don’t find that difficult to understand. It is a nuance that escapes you so you call it spin.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #161690

womanmarine,

Your “nuance” is ridiculous. Muslims were asked if violence against civilians (terrorism) is justified in defense of Islam.

With the exception of Germany, no less than 22% of Muslims say terrorism is rarely to often justified. In Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria, the majority of those surveyed say terrorism is justified rarely to often.

What percentage of Americans would you say feel the same way? 1%. Your comparison to McVeigh is a weak analogy.

Again, it’s not nuance, it’s misinformed spin.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #161692

Aldous:

You have a misunderstanding: “Most Republicans think that Saddam carried out the 9/11 attacks”

WRONG

It was Osama and his Al Qaida buddies. Saddam just supported them.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 25, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #161696

Now that we know there is great misunderstandings between non-Muslims and Muslims, what do we do about it? Do we keep on attacking Muslims or try to understand them?

Don’t get me wrong. We must attack jihadists. But the vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists. If we keep on denigrating Muslims, many of them may become jihadists.

We in the West must start a dialogue… many dialogues with Muslims. We have a lot to talk about in order to erase the many misunderstandings.

Our choice is clear: Either we spend the next generation or two in military battles or we find ways to get to understand each other and to work with each other.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 25, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #161706

Aldous is at least partly right with his claim that “Most Republicans think that Saddam carried out the 9/11 attacks”

See this report: “A substantial majority of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe the opposite on all these points…”

Of course that was Oct 2004, I’m sure Team Red has figured things out by now.

Posted by: William Cohen at June 25, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #161708

Woman

Timothy MCvey never claimed to be doing what he did BECAUSE he was Christian. His faith is incidential to his crime. The same is true of someone like John Mohammed. He is a Muslim, but we do not call him a Muslim terrorist because it is incidental to his crime. Or take the example of Jeffery Dahlmer. He was gay. We don’t call him a gay mass murderer because he didn’t identify himself with that as part of what he did.

The 9/11 highjackers clearly did identify what they did with Islam. So if Muslims don’t identify them as such, I am sure that those who believe in hell will agree that Mohammed Atta is now a resident of the netherregions. I am sure Christians believe that about Mcvey

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #161709

The Palestinians have just made a claim that they possess WMD.

If anyone can find news outlets reporting on this, please let me know.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #161712

Jack:

You don’t have to convince me, you just made my point, that the muslims are not required to identify with the terrorists just because the terrorists claim to do what they do in the name of Islam.

Perhaps my example was wrong, but the point is the same.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #161714

For decades, science fiction writers have used the East vs West (read that the Christian world vs the Muslim world) as a backdrop for many of their futuristic tomes.

In the Muslim view, anything less than total world domination is unacceptable. Their holy book clearly states that the infidel must convert or die.

Conversely, many in the Christian world, and most of the Jewish world, believe there is no room for Muslims.

You can’t just take nearly 2 millenia of hatred and distrust and wish it away. You can’t negotiate it away, you can’t pray it away.

We are headed toward a conflagaration between Muslim and Christian/Jews on a scale that will make the Crusades pale in comparison.

And those with their heads buried in the sand will get their ass shot off!

Posted by: ulysses at June 25, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #161715

womanmarine

“The Muslims don’t identify with the terrorists as fellow Muslims”

you need to reread the poll. the poll is asking muslims(the religon) whether arabs(the ethnic group) commited the 9/11 attacks not asking muslims whether muslims commited the attacks.

the 1st question asks “did arabs carry out the 9/11 attacks” not “did muslims carry out the 9/11 attacks”. there is a difference

Posted by: robert at June 25, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #161720

Robert:

The poll responders know the arabs are muslim, it goes without saying.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #161730

And those with their heads buried in the sand will get their ass shot off!

That is some of the most magnanimously spoken words I have ever seen on this blog.Keep an eye on the U.N. tomorrow and the next couple of days.

Posted by: Angry White Capitalist Pig at June 25, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #161734

A muslim who reads his quran and follows the teachings of it and the hadith will:

a) be encouraged to lie in order to advance the cause of allah and islam (takiya)

b) view all “kufir” (non-muslims) with a jaded eye, we are all less than they in every way

c) believe fellow muslims before outsiders, eye any Christian or Jew with suspicion and feel much more pious in their faith than kufir

The few moderate muslims who speak out with any authority are thought to be and are singled out as “apostate” and could well fear for their lives in the company of zealots/fundamentalist.

Unless and until a cleric with tremendous clout reigns in the hatred and jihad contained within the quran, we will see no end to the attacks until as the quran states “all the world is for allah”.

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #161740

Hey DOCTOR POLITICO!!!!

DID THE CHRISTIANS CARRY OUT THE BOMBINGS AND SHOOTINGS AT ABORTION CLINICS NATIOWIDE??!!

Please do answer this question.

If you say in fact “NO, they did not” then your whole article presented above is entirely a hypocritical piece. If you are in fact saying “yes”—then you have some explaining to do to Christians who would never, never resort to violence as they feel it is quite unethical.

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #161751

Dr. Politico,

Also in the link you just gave from the NY Times—is it just me or was the right-wing on this site not decrying the NYT as a liberal MSM news organization when it printed a leak about the S.W.I.F.T. story??? (SWIFT being the money surveilance system that tracks foreign dollars coming into the US). Now it serves as a source whereas before the right wing wanted to bring it up on charges of treason.

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #161753

Novenge,

I supplied that link for a person I figured it would resonate with.

Still, the main stream media in general have demonstrated significant bias in their reporting over the past few years. That, however, does not mean that certain articles don’t get it right. There are, after all, several authors per outlet. The Associated Press is one of the worst offenders, though they fall short of treasonous action. Nevertheless, I still read articles by Associated Press writers (and often reference them favorably). I’m not boycotting news outlets due to their bias just like I don’t hesitate to point that bias out.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #161756

Novenge,

I missed your arlier question:

“DID THE CHRISTIANS CARRY OUT THE BOMBINGS AND SHOOTINGS AT ABORTION CLINICS NATIOWIDE??!!”

No need to scream, my hearing is just fine.

I answered a similar question earlier, which applies here:

With the exception of Germany, no less than 22% of Muslims say terrorism is rarely to often justified. In Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria, the majority of those surveyed say terrorism is justified rarely to often.

What percentage of Americans would you say feel the same way? 1%. Your comparison to McVeigh is a weak analogy.

The point of the article is not to say that only Islamic extremists exist. However, it is far more prevalent in the ISlamic community.

That Christians have carried out such grotesque acts is regrettable. But keep in mind that a majority of Americans don’t argue that the Jews were behind those attacks, instead.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #161759

Doc,

Avoiding the question? Okay then.

The point is this: If stated the Christians were behind it, that is a sweeping generalization. If the answer is no Christians were not, that is a denial of circumstances. If you said “some” where then I ask you: WHERE IS THAT OPTION ON THIS POLL YOU PRESENTED? It asks based on a “yes” or “no” pattern to get a prefixed answer—if it had an option there which said “Do you think only ‘radical Muslims’ commited these attrocities?” then it would be a whole lot closer to science—wouldn’t it? The participants could not make a case that the answers are more complex then the quick serving answers given, but this poll is frought with ambiguity—which is summarily why I personally disagree with such narrow-sighted polling whether it serves the left or the right.

It may not be a denial outright, it could be questions geared to look like a denial by proxy of lack of options to answer with—if you get my drift. Think about the narrowness that the survey is asking of its participants and how it gears to either “YES” or “NO” androidally.

Polls are paid-for things, I give them little credence and question the science—especially this time (Bush poll numbers too).

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #161764

Novenge,

“Avoiding the question? Okay then.”

I answered your question. Pay attention.

You asked:

“DID THE CHRISTIANS CARRY OUT THE BOMBINGS AND SHOOTINGS AT ABORTION CLINICS NATIOWIDE??!!”

I answered:

“That Christians have carried out such grotesque acts is regrettable. But keep in mind that a majority of Americans don’t argue that the Jews were behind those attacks, instead.”

Also:

“WHERE IS THAT OPTION ON THIS POLL YOU PRESENTED?”

You should take that up with Pew, I’m just reporting the findings. But the question was: were Arabs behind 9/11?

The answer is not “some” as you suggest; it is yes.

“Polls are paid-for things, I give them little credence and question the science—especially this time (Bush poll numbers too).”

I agree with you and I’ve said as much in previous threads. Nevertheless, I tend to give Pew more credit, as they are far more professional in survey applications than are the media.

I would also add that a pattern exists in Islamist nations that tend to support this polls findings. THe governments of such countries are generally radical. I’m willing to accept this poll as an accurate portrayal of the problem that exists in the Arab world, namely a high level of prejudice toward the West. I would add that a similar prejudice exists among Westerners, as the poll also suggest. I wrote in my post:

“Apparently, neither side views the other too favorably.”

I believed that before I saw the results of this poll and I still do.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 25, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #161768

JACK

I view this in context much like the polls that are conducted by let’s say, Lou Dobbs, the polls are simpleton questions that gear every answer to a given agenda. “Do you think amnesty is wrong?” yes or no. It has no options by which to allow a rationalized answer to emerge.

The pew polls are a question of the cross section and whom they asked and ultimately represent. If it says wide cross section then what are the parts of that and why can’t they give that data.

How any mothers with children
Young twenty something males
Highly religious persons of a certain age group
Young twenty something females
Thirty something blue collar males…And so on.

And for them to feed them a question that doesn’t cover even “the reallity of the situation” isn’t science. there are no other options there by which to answer fairly or present a rational or reallistic view.

The fact is that “Radical Islamic” persons commited the attrocities on 9-11, and I’d bet that if that was on this survey that may be one of the top answers given.

“Yes” and “no” are pablem feed.

And yes it is unfortunate that “some” Christians did that, but the point isn’t Christians, like it’s a test of interpersonal consciences or guilt of a segment of an overall populace, the question is about science and how these poll findings leave something to be desired. Sorry to grill ya’ so hard, I’m a stickler for this stuff.

What about “Do you think Osama Bin Laden committed the 9-11 attacks?” See, even that might tell us something.

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #161773

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

“The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.””

Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #161776

Update: Another Study: Misperceptions Still Plague American Public on Iraq

Bush’s support tied to misinformation

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).

Despite statements by Richard Clarke, David Kay, Hans Blix and others, few Americans perceive most experts as saying the contrary. Only 15% said they are hearing “experts mostly agree Iraq was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,” while 82% either said that “experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support” (47%) or “experts are evenly divided on the question” (35%). Only 34% said they thought most experts believe Iraq did not have WMD, while 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them (30%) or that experts are divided on the question (35%).

Not surprisingly, perceptions of what experts are saying are highly correlated with beliefs about prewar Iraq, which in turn are highly correlated with support for the decision to go to war.

Perhaps most relevant politically, perceptions of what the experts are saying are also highly correlated with intentions to vote for the President in the upcoming election. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq did not have WMD, 23% said they would vote for Bush and 74% for Kerry.

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al Qaeda, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% said they would vote for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, just 13% said they would vote for Bush and 85% for Kerry.

What Does This Mean

Just as the previous poll, this poll clearly indicates that George Bush’s electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be wrong about the facts. Wrong about WMD’s. Wrong about Iraq and 9/11. Wrong about Iraq and al Queda.

As stated above in bold text, George Bush’s support is directly proportional to the public’s misperceptions.

This report, taken with the one below, leaves no doubt that the US press, and particularly the television media, are not only failing to inform the public of the facts, but they are actually misinforming the public in matters of the utmost importance.

It is our contention that as long as the press fails to properly inform the public, the U.S.’s prospects for responsible, qualified government remains dire. It is simply unacceptable.

Thomas Jefferson said he would rather have a press with no government than a government with no press. He certainly was not referring to CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any of the other television news outlets.

What we have now is a press industry that is worse than no press at all; an unaccountable enterprise for whom holding accountable the most powerful is often a conflict of interest.

The internet may one day offset this imbalance, but we don’t have time.

Instead of protesting the World Bank, the Wars, or George Bush’s public appearances, we should be protesting the media conglomerations first. For no matter how much we try, no agenda will be met until we regain control over our press and that most powerful tool for the propaganda of power, the television.

Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #161781

Novenge, there is still a none-too-subtle difference between the christian bombings at the abortion clinics and an islamic jihadist beheading an “infidel”. Sadly, I don’t think you know it, so I’ll explain:

The christians that blew up abortion clinics were doing so to stop what they believed were murders ocurring at those clinics. They were not attacking people for being non-christian (you may argue that point). Jihadists are quite clearly killing infidels because they are in fact infidels. Nothing more, nothing less.

That’s enough of a difference for me. I don’t want to sound like a relativist, but blowing up a building to stop murder (their reason), is different than cutting somebodies head off because they have a different religious belief.

As Kant would say, the reason someone does something is of value in determining the value (or detriment) of the action.

Posted by: Bruce at June 25, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #161782

DID THE CHRISTIANS CARRY OUT THE BOMBINGS AND SHOOTINGS AT ABORTION CLINICS NATIOWIDE??!!

I like to see the Demarats day by day foaming at the mouth with there absurd absolution of keeping abortion alive. 1.Removing god,2.the glorification of abortionist, butchery,3.habor,condone,and propagate, gay,lesbian and sexual transgender agenda 4.cut and run mentality to the global war on terror, are there only platform.With these four incisively, incendiary political, battle lines in the sand, I take great comfort in the knowledge, this will serve to contuine, to give rise to there defeat,again in 06 and 08 .

Posted by: Angry White Capitalist Pig at June 25, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #161783

One observation that is overlooked, if leaders of christian groups advocated and assisted in the killing of thousands of innocent human beings using their “religion” as their motivation, there would be a great and immediate denouncing and condemnation of those actions by true christians all over the world. So the only conclusion one can come up with is that they are in agreement to the murders of thousands of people.

And if democrats were not so “anti-christian” they would see this and stand up along side republicans for what is right. Of course, what could one expect from a group that works so hard to protect the rights of trees and animals, and at the same time spends so much effort defending those that take the lives of innocent unborn boys and girls.

Posted by: patriot50 at June 25, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #161789

Bruce and Angry White Capitalist Pig:

What is your position on the hundreds of thousands of fetuses killed during invetro-fertilization?

As you know, for every single fetus implanted, a dozen are thrown away as excess.

How do you feel about that?

Posted by: Aldous at June 26, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #161795

I tend to think Huntington is right in most of his assertions about the Clash of Civilizations. He goes into great depth about how Muslims view the West with distrust, fear, and hatred. Islam was founded by a man who was revered for being a great warrior, and nomad warrior culture is embedded into Islam. Furthermore, Muslims and Christians have been fighting each other since the day they first came into contact and there is nothing to indicate to me that this will stop. Muslims will continue to view the West unfavorably as they are in a fundamentally weaker position. Aside from oil, the Middle East and Central Asian Muslim nations have little in the way of natural resources and few economic prospects. They refuse to admit any resposibility for their own problems and blame us. Meanwhile, as terrorist attacks continue with no condemnation from the rest of the Muslim community, the “religion of peace” mantra sounds more and more like just another PC slogan that works if you don’t watch the news or stay informed at all.

Aldous, You weren’t asking me about this, but I oppose the destruction of fetuses during in vitro fertilization as a Catholic. I recall John Paul II was the subject of incredulous disbelief from liberals when he condemned this practice in Britain. Much like the idea of cloning embryos strictly to harvest their stem cells, its morally and ethically reprehensible.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 26, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #161796

Aldous, what’s your source on the fetuses killed during invetro-fertilization? I’ve never heard of such a thing, although your statment, ment to proves some anti-christian provocative point is given weight by the fact that 1LT B chimed in on it.
To be honest, I’d like more info on this before throwing my 2 cents in.
Clearly, the impregnation process for invetero is in great need of further improvements if your statement is a true one. But for me, life begins at conception, whether or not thats in a womb.
And Timothy McVey has stated repeatedly in interviews that he is not a christian, but instead worships as a neo-pagan. (Thank you left leaning, Christian Science Monitor)

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 26, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #161810

Okay BRUCE, ANGRY WHITE CAP PIG, HARD HAT HARRY, friggin’ who else, PATRIOT 50, and…

Okay my point in asking Doc Politico about the Abortion Clinic bombings was in reference to polling and questioning whether the polls were fair or geared to bring about a contrived answer that really doesn’t tell us anything. That’s pretty much it, not clinics or bombings per se. My point wasn’t vitriol or shame game or anti-christian, socialist, nihilist, Godless Liberal or whatever other charge. The point was the science of polling that’s it.

My position on abortion is a one of feesibility but in truth what constitutes life is the start of neural pathways. Most abortions fortunately are done before this begins during the early stages of the first trimester, it is the bud of life, but is it life yet? There now go nuts.

Posted by: Novenge at June 26, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #161812

All libs,

Why so much spinning? For marinewoman, are all arabs muslim? Are muslims arab? You seem to use the words interchangeably. They are not the same, so quit reading more into the poll.

Bush’s approval is on the rise. Libs don’t believe those polls. Bush’s approval is on the decline. Libs say people are finally opening their eyes.

Here is an easy poll for ya. Bush wins in 2000. Bush wins in 2004. Yes, I know ya’ll are still in denial of those two polls. If the repubs are so smart to be able to fix 2 presidential elections and get away with it, you might as well join us because your leadership is obviously too stupid to protect you.

I, as a Christian, say anyone who kills a baby murderer is wrong, not nearly as wrong as the baby murderer but still wrong. Do I feel bad for the dead murderer? Sorry, I am too busy mourning the deaths of millions of innocent babies who weren’t allowed to take a breath. If someone kills an endangered mammal who is just “barely” pregnant, how many deaths should he be on trial for? What if it was the last female of the species? By the way, your great liberal defenders are trying to distance themselves away from abortion. They really can’t understand how they lost the catholic vote with a catholic canidate in 2004.

How many buildings did Tim McVey blow up? How many abortion clinics blow up each day? How many Christians do you see dancing in the streets after a baby butcher has bitten the dust? If Tiller the Killer gets his, you might just see me in the streets, but that has nothing to do with Christianity. Quit spinning and answer some questions.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 26, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #161814

Dr Politico,

First, let me thanks you for these PEW stats which show that, contrary of usual claims I saw posted here some threads ago, French muslims are both more tolerant and more aware of islam connection to 9/11 than other Europeans muslims.

Overall, a good topic but, unfortunatly, you fall on the same trap in the end:

The author of this ridiculous piece, Cheherezade Faramarzi, needs to reacquaint himself with reality. His argument aims at proving that non-Muslims are the intolerant ones while Muslims are simply misunderstood. The article continues:
For some of the more than five dozen Muslims interviewed for this story [does that make this article credible?] in Amsterdam, Paris and London, it’s a sense of shame, or even guilt, that innocents have been killed in the name of Islam; they say those feelings make them seek to be “invisible.” For those lucky enough to have jobs [because non-Muslims are so intolerant], there is little time to protest or even write letters to newspapers.

How many Europeans muslims did you interviewed to back your attack on this article credibility?
To me, your claim credibility is not as good as this author’s article.

And racism have more to do with immigrants not having a job than intolerance…

Are you getting a feel of the author’s tone? This is Jihad Journalism at its finest.

Really? Okay, then I should be a Jihadist myself (thanks, I was fully unaware of that!) because I happen to share her opinions considering what the few muslims friends of mine told me about this topic…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 26, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #161815

lm,

only Republicans think Sadam was involved with 9-11

Oh please, these days only idiots still think that. Whatever party they lean to.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 26, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #161819

Dr. Politico-
On the subject of the supposed WMDs, I’ll believe it when I see it, hopefully in a raid, rather than in an attack. It may be some hopeless idiot’s idea of a good bluff. It’s not like other folks haven’t bluffed to cover their butts in that part of the world. If they’re real, they are likely homemade, and that’s going to raise the chances that they’re impure, improperly mixed, or other issues. What I’d watch for is some poor saps buying it when someone makes a mistake with them.

Otherwise, I’m skeptical.

On the subject of your criticism of that article, I guess the only thing I can say is that if you keep on looking for a fight with people, you’re going to get it, and others will look for a fight with you.

Maybe to your mind this Clash of Civilizations is necessary, but the reality is our civilizations have already clashed, long ago, and we’re just dealing with the consequences. Now we can aggravate things, or we can start defusing the threat.

There are plenty of idiots in the Middle East willing to start wars, just like there are plenty here at home. There are plenty of folks who get so enamored of their own patriotism, piety, politics, and/or intellectual beliefs that they decide that the deaths of others to further this purpose are only a fair price to pay. It’s easy for them to scream for war and not consider the cost.

It gets worse if you get foolish folks on both sides, willing to ratchet up the violence and bloodshed and use the other’s atrocities to justify their own.

It’s not in our interest to aggravate conflict between our cultures, especially when we will increase the threat against our country, rather than destroy it.

As solution like the constant war you people suggest smacks of a lack of imagination. I think it’s time we stop trying to act like Gods there, free to interfere as we see fit, and act more like friends. The degree to which we can influence the cultures is the degree to which we can calm the situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #161820

Woman

I agree that Muslims are not required to identify with terrorists and I hope that most do not. However the respond to the survey question is troubling. It is the same as an American doubting the Timothy McVeigh was American. As I read it, they are not saying (as I wish they would) that people like Osama bin Laden are not true Muslims because of what they did. They are doubting overall that Muslims did it and probably buying into one of those conspiracy theories (CIA, Jews etc did it).

Novenge

Dr Polico answered you well, but if you look above the same logic goes for your comment. If you asked me whether or not Christians bombed the clinics, I would have to say yes. If you asked me if there was general support in the Christian community for this, I would say no.

But what this survey finds (and we hear from other sources) is not that at all. What I object to is tolerance of terrorism done in the name of Islam. Timothy McVeigh did not claim to be doing his deed for Christianity. Anyway we executed him. That clinic bomber, Rudolph, claimed to do it in the name of God. Most Christians rejected that. We hunted him down and put him in jail. If we got similar cooperation in the Muslim world, life would be a lot better.


Aldous

Experts did say Iraq has WMD before the invasion. Experts may have been mistaken, but it was the general consensus. Your respondents are not incorrect in saying that. Also the situation is sufficiently confused (there was WMD in some forms) that the answer would never be very cut and dried. You would have to ask a series of questions and these would be the correct answers.

Did the experts say Saddam had WMD? - Yes
Did subsequent investigation find significant usable WMD? - No
Did subsequent investigation find SOME WMD? – Yes.

Similarly with Al Qaeda

Did Saddam have an operational link with Al Qaeda re 9/11? - No
Did Iraqi intelligence have links with Al Qaeda? - Yes
Was Al Qaeda present in Iraq before the U.S. invasion? - Yes.

The point is that people are making statements and answering questions about a situation that changed and is still uncertain. You would have to be very precise in your question before you could draw conclusions re their knowledge or ignorance. For example, if you asked, “Before April 2003, did most experts believe Saddam had WMD?” A well informed person should answer yes. If you started with “After September 2003…” he should say no. But if you just ask the general question you are not being clear enough.

Posted by: Jack at June 26, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #161821

Jack, experts also did say Iraq’s WMDs, if any, were not a threat to USA before the invasion.

If one focus only nations having WMDs criteria to justify a pre-emptive attack of these nations, US will be right now at war with pretty much half earth nations. The threat criteria is a major one, if not even the strongest one.
I’m not even talking about the pre-emptive doctrine moral ground here, which in itself very debatable…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 26, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #161823

Phillipe

The President gave many reasons to be concerned about Iraq in his SOTU speech in 2003 and other statements around that time. WMD was an important consideration, but only one. He also said that the threat was NOT imminent, but gathering and that better to deal with it BEFORE it became imminent. The trouble with premption is that if you do it right the threat never materializes and people can think it was a waste of time.

Posted by: Jack at June 26, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #161824

Jack-
Let me make this simple for you: Without claims of a working, ongoing WMD program and collaboration with al-Qaeda, could Bush have justified the war to the majority of Americans?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #161826

Jack,

He also said that the threat was NOT imminent, but gathering and that better to deal with it BEFORE it became imminent. The trouble with premption is that if you do it right the threat never materializes and people can think it was a waste of time.

Yeah, like current Bush stance regarding world climate change: threat is real, but NOT imminent but gathering and that better to deal with it BEFORE it became imminent.
Not.

Sure, in that case part of the threat had already materialized and people already think it will be a waste of their (american or not) way of life.

PS: about Iraq, I’ll bet people think it was a waste of money and lives but not (yet) time. Time is relativly cheap compared to lives.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 26, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #161835

Angry White Capitalist Pig:

What is your position on the hundreds of thousands of fetuses killed during invetro-fertilization?—-$$$—-

Every time I shoot a wad, I dont take vac hose and suck the brans out of each and every tadpole.What would you be saying if your mother had aborted you?

Posted by: Angry White Capitalist Pig at June 26, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #161838

Being a Catholic and having the clergy involved in child sex scams from years ago is a shameful thing to me. A conflicting set of feelings that are only settled in my mind that those involved in all of that are not what I stand for. Not that I wear my religion on my sleave but it was how I was raised and part of my core values. So I say little because I don’t want to have to deal with the actions of the few slandering all of us. First, I am a US citizen…then the rest follow.

Perhaps, a little of these sorts of feelings apply to those Muslims who also believe the acts of the few are not what they are about.

Just a thought.

Posted by: John at June 26, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #161845

John,

Yeap, that basically the same sort of feelings my few french muslims friends exposed to me. They feel french and european first, then the rest follow.

Standing up to oppose the behavior of some islamic terrorists sounds to them like they’ll recognize these people are part of their muslim community and they take responsability for their disbehavior. Which they don’t want to.

Islamist terrorists are not doing in the name of all muslims’s Islam but a radical and twisted Islam of their alone.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 26, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #161847

Here is (I think) an interesting blog-site of Muslims I found back when I was wondering how a more varied cross-section felt about the cartoon incidents. It is more European, I think, but still, it seems to be a varied cross-section.

http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/

Posted by: myles at June 26, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #161851


Jack: It is better to deal with the threat in Iraq before it becomes imminent while at the same time not dealing with the more imminent threat posed by Iran or the more imminent threat presented by North Korea.

While Bush has been fiddling in Iraq, the commies have not been diddling in North Korea.

Posted by: jlw at June 26, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #161857


After Christian terrorists from the middle east attacked the Islamic capitalist nation the U. S. on 911, a solid majority of Christians polled in middle eastern countries deny that Christians were invloved in the attack.

Posted by: jlw at June 26, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #161859

When exactly did you make the jump from “Arab” to “Muslim?”

The question clearly asks, “Did ARABS carry out 9/11 attacks?”

The interpretation of the question by respondents is unknown and could lead us to believe a number of different things. In my view, it proves nothing.

Posted by: Zeek at June 26, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #161866

good point, Zeek. The one question did ask about Arabs, but the rest seems to focus on Muslims. Was that to differentiate between Arab muslims and other muslims? or just to focus on Arabs?

If they framed the question to ask about Muslims, it could be the answers would include American or other muslims, not arabs only. So maybe the survey wanted to focus on region rather than religion?

Posted by: myles at June 26, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #161872

One of the polls asked if muslims carried out the attacks and the majority (with the exception of the French muslims) thought muslims didn’t carry out the attacks. Hello! OBL has been on records (hundreds of times since then) bragging that he and his fellow muslims were responsible for carrying out the attacks of 9/11. That’s just ridiculous and (extremely) foolish on their part to say muslims didn’t carryout the attack. Oh well, ignorance is bliss for them, I guess.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 26, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #161882

Poli-
you use a lot of verbiage to put forth this message. If I rub blue mud in my stomach and you rub red,you are obviously not as enlightened as I.
Muslim and Christian moderates share more values than not.
Fanatics and xenophobes on either side are the real problem.
Bottom line,all thinking people wish for a life with peace,dignity and the ability to impart their respective views to their families and the world.

Posted by: jblym at June 26, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #162171

rahdigly,

One of the polls asked if muslims carried out the attacks and the majority (with the exception of the French muslims) thought muslims didn’t carry out the attacks.

I can’t find that wording on any of the questions in the Pew poll. Are you talking of some other poll? All I see is “Arabs” but nowhere do I see “muslims” in question regarding the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by: myles at June 27, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #162252

Why would Christians want to harm America? As a practicing Christian, I believe in free will and using words to persuade, not blowing up buildings and killing 8000 Americans. We are living well in this democracy and bear no grudge agianst it.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 27, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #162449

I think even though there are so many here who can not stand the other’s party, we do at least love our country enough to keep watch. Presidents come and go, and Bush will too. (I like President Bush) then what else will we have to hate each other about? We need to stand united against terrorists, stop passing the blame and together try to build American pride. Home first and then abroad. Great minds with ideas like Kennedy’s Peace Corps that improved American image with other countries. We are all so busy arguing with ourselves we have forgotten how to stand side by side and look toward the good of the nation instead of the good of the party.

Posted by: Christina at June 27, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #162749

Novenge and WomanMarine, it’s about definitions. If Lenin were a heavy investor in Standard Oil and owned a sweatshop in Latvia, would he have been a Communist? If McVey blew up a building full of innocent people, would he have been a Christian? People are identified by their adherence to Doctrine. Instead of labeling - ergo, mislabeling - I suggest that you identify the Doctrine that a perceived enemy is conforming to.

Anyone who has, as their own doctrine, a policy of ‘misidentifying’ as a means of attacking a merely preferred enemy, instead of the real enemy, has already lost.

Posted by: Daoud at June 28, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #163577

It’s my belief that all of this is being instigated firstly by the press for newsworthiness. Since 9/11 it seems they hook onto any nook and crany to report on to make news and stay relevent. Look at what constitutes news nowadays. The more putrid, sardonic, hateful, crass, ugly, nonsensical, whimsical, irrelevant, sarcastic, blastphemous, two-faced, ironic, unappealing, and unnewsworthy the event, the more they report on it…and from all angles. You can no longer tell the news from views and agenda pushing. It’s all gone the way of Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and birthdays in this world…plastic, phoney balony crap with little if any substance. I use to demand my children watch or read the news, now I praise them when they miss it. If it’s not political correctness, it’s nitpicking. If it’s not nitpicking, it’s Britney Spears’ baby standing in the car seat. I often find myself longing for the sweet sting of death and feel jealous of those who have already experienced it. This is worse that a thousand deaths and plays into the hands of those wishing for our enslavement. If the press is any sign, we are bailing water into the boat.

Posted by: David Shingledecker at June 30, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #165658

The quran enjoins Muslims to fight the infidels until Islam has been established as the predominant religion/system of government throughout the world. Furthermore, the Quran does not express universe ethical norms, but prescribes different conduct depending on whether one is dealing with a Kufir, a woman, a polytheist, and whether and to what extent the act will benefit the Umma (i.e. lying is permissible if it furthers the goals of the faith). It is an exapnsionist, totalitarian ideology that is wholly inconsistent with a secular democracy.There are many good and decent Muslims, but the book itself is irredeemable.

Posted by: Jane at July 7, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #220622

Wow, “The Quran tells muslims to kill infidels” blahblahblah….Show me one verse in the Quran where it says that. And don’t give me that verse 9:5 bullshit and leave out the part after where it says “kill all the wicked people and disbelievers until they stop killing you, or you have treaties with them, or they have not harmed you.”

At least when the Koran says things violent—it sets limits, unlike the Bible which is unequivocally violent.

Posted by: Jim G. at May 17, 2007 4:50 AM
Post a comment