A little vindication for Muslims

[theVOID]

Hardly surprising seeing as how many Muslim civilians have been killed recently.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/Muslim...lence.aspx

[Minimalist]

Perhaps they are merely less honest than the others?

[theVOID]

The question was posed to Muslims, not Al Qaeda.

Imagine if it was Pakistan launching drone attacks on American civilians, wouldn't you think Americans would be a little more against the murder of civilians in that case?

[Judas BentHer]

A little vindication for Muslims?

OK.

I think what's forgotten in such poll numbers, when talking about civilians in any hot zone being killed, is that very often the enemy ensconce themselves amid civilians, their own people, so that when a strike occurs their enemy looks like the horrible aggressor guilty of killing innocent men, women and children.

It happened in Vietnam, it happens in Iraq and it happens in Afghanistan.
Those are but three theaters wherein civilians tally in the death toll. I'm sure, as it's a battle strategy, like unto hiding in plain sight, that it's occurred since the inception of war and conflicts. It just makes sense. Blackening the name of one's enemy as a "baby killer", defeats their morale not only in country but when they return home with the label attached.

Not to mention how many of those Muslims listed, (as well as the others) were killed by their own people as "collateral damage". Hell of a term that.

[theVOID]

The poll addresses the percent of people in a community who were of the opinion that the killing of civilians by military force was never acceptable, sure there are Muslim militants who hide in plain site or entice violence that can affect a community but that does nothing to undermine the trend present amongst the community as a whole -The attitudes of Muslims in general towards killing civilians.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well the victors always argue such actions are justified, using those impeccable principles of moral philosophy,"the ends justify the the means" and tu quoque.

I'm thinking of WW2 and the deliberate targeting of civilians in the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg,where around 100,THOUSAND civilians were killed as just retribution,to demoralise the Germans,and boost English morale.

The A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified at the time (and still,today by many) by arguing that many thousands of US lives were saved.(the ends justified the means)

My own opinion: IF you accept violence as a legitimate means to an end,ultimately, expediency, based on"the ends justify the means" is and must be the only rule. What? You obey rules and LOSE? Oh please.

There is no such thing as 'a just war' (a term invented I think by the devious mind of Augustine of Hippo) Once the killing starts, there is no moral high ground.

I will not even start on my opinion of the presence of US (and Aussie) troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; I get too angry.

[Violet]

Perhaps they are merely less honest than the others?

Damn but that is pretty

And people went to war over it? I know beauty is fleeting, but for shame

[Minimalist]

The question was posed to Muslims, not Al Qaeda.

Now there is an interesting distinction.