Shooting in Munich

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found the statistic that 86% of Muslims jn America distance themselves from ISIS worrisome. That leaves 14% . How many people is that????

Exactly.

Those stats deflate the argument that only a teeny tiny select number of people support the barbaric beliefs of ISIS. Scary.

Actually, the statistic that you cite was not included among the data above. I assume that you are referring to this:

"In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances."

Here is the exact question asked:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?" (Bolding added).

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-selected-questions.pdf

It is important to note that the question was about defending Islam from its enemies. If Americans were asked whether bombings that killed innocent civilians were justified to defend the United States from its enemies, I would bet that a lot more than 1% would say that it is often justified.

The United States is a country, not a religion. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It's totally acceptable. Except huge portions of the Muslim world are not in any way secular or 'easter/christmas' Muslims (using the Christian analogy). Where are the large groups of fully practicing moderate Muslims was my question?

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. They're everywhere, but it seems like you prefer to believe they are not.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found the statistic that 86% of Muslims jn America distance themselves from ISIS worrisome. That leaves 14% . How many people is that????

Exactly.

Those stats deflate the argument that only a teeny tiny select number of people support the barbaric beliefs of ISIS. Scary.

Actually, the statistic that you cite was not included among the data above. I assume that you are referring to this:

"In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances."

Here is the exact question asked:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?" (Bolding added).

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-selected-questions.pdf

It is important to note that the question was about defending Islam from its enemies. If Americans were asked whether bombings that killed innocent civilians were justified to defend the United States from its enemies, I would bet that a lot more than 1% would say that it is often justified.

I would think what important to note is :do you think suicide bombings or other violence against civilians is ever acceptable...

That that many people think it is in America, whe no where in the world is Islam under an existential threat, is terrifying. Key word: Suicide bombings key word: Civilians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My two cents: the fact that any percentage doesn't detest ISIS says something. And the fact that anyone thinks violent terrorist acts are sometimes justified is also appalling.

Stats like those are worrisome and foster skepticism about the religion.

You may not remember, but Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in South Africa. Sinn Fein (an Irish group) also committed terrorist acts against the British. In one case, they killed British WWII Veterans during a WWII commemoration march. These were old veterans, not modern day soldiers.

Some extremist Muslims are not the only ones who believe that violent acts are sometimes justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My two cents: the fact that any percentage doesn't detest ISIS says something. And the fact that anyone thinks violent terrorist acts are sometimes justified is also appalling.

Stats like those are worrisome and foster skepticism about the religion.

You may not remember, but Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in South Africa. Sinn Fein (an Irish group) also committed terrorist acts against the British. In one case, they killed British WWII Veterans during a WWII commemoration march. These were old veterans, not modern day soldiers.

Some extremist Muslims are not the only ones who believe that violent acts are sometimes justified.

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm.pretty sure we celebrate nelson Mandela the pacifist, not Nelson Mandela the terrorist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I found the statistic that 86% of Muslims jn America distance themselves from ISIS worrisome. That leaves 14% . How many people is that????

Exactly.

Those stats deflate the argument that only a teeny tiny select number of people support the barbaric beliefs of ISIS. Scary.

Actually, the statistic that you cite was not included among the data above. I assume that you are referring to this:

"In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances."

Here is the exact question asked:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?" (Bolding added).

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-selected-questions.pdf

It is important to note that the question was about defending Islam from its enemies. If Americans were asked whether bombings that killed innocent civilians were justified to defend the United States from its enemies, I would bet that a lot more than 1% would say that it is often justified.

The United States is a country, not a religion. Big difference.

Most of the victims of extremist Islam terrorist attacks are Muslims themselves. And it's not always about religion, as much as it is about politics and power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

"It's tempting for many people to try and turn it into almost a scorecard, trying to figure out which religious groups are more violent than others, and boil it down to this grossly oversimplified keeping of score, like it's a football game," she says.
This is a mistake, she argues. Most terrorist attacks are rooted in geopolitics, she says. "Religion is certainly a part of them, but it is not the only part."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My two cents: the fact that any percentage doesn't detest ISIS says something. And the fact that anyone thinks violent terrorist acts are sometimes justified is also appalling.

Stats like those are worrisome and foster skepticism about the religion.

You may not remember, but Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist in South Africa. Sinn Fein (an Irish group) also committed terrorist acts against the British. In one case, they killed British WWII Veterans during a WWII commemoration march. These were old veterans, not modern day soldiers.

Some extremist Muslims are not the only ones who believe that violent acts are sometimes justified.

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm.pretty sure we celebrate nelson Mandela the pacifist, not Nelson Mandela the terrorist

yes, and people forget that, by strict definition, he was a terrorist. We just think he was justified because he was fighting for freedom and equal rights for Black South Africans. I don't disagree with him, but you see how easy it is for people to accept violent acts when *they* think it is warranted?

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure it is weird to condone terrorist acts against civilians when your religion is threatened. When that is not even happening anywhere in the planet. Shows a paranoid extremist world view in a surprisingly high percentage of people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure it is weird to condone terrorist acts against civilians when your religion is threatened. When that is not even happening anywhere in the planet. Shows a paranoid extremist world view in a surprisingly high percentage of people.

The question was hypothetical. Would you condone violence against innocent civilians in defense of your religion? Maybe you wouldn't, but plenty of non-Muslim Americans would. It wasn't a very useful question and probably shouldn't be given a lot of importance.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure it is weird to condone terrorist acts against civilians when your religion is threatened. When that is not even happening anywhere in the planet. Shows a paranoid extremist world view in a surprisingly high percentage of people.

The question was hypothetical. Would you condone violence against innocent civilians in defense of your religion? Maybe you wouldn't, but plenty of non-Muslim Americans would. It wasn't a very useful question and probably shouldn't be given a lot of importance.

I agree its a poorly constructed question, but NO, plenty of people wouldn't. In fact, 86% wouldn't. Would you condone violence against civilians was clear to them.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure it is weird to condone terrorist acts against civilians when your religion is threatened. When that is not even happening anywhere in the planet. Shows a paranoid extremist world view in a surprisingly high percentage of people.

The question was hypothetical. Would you condone violence against innocent civilians in defense of your religion? Maybe you wouldn't, but plenty of non-Muslim Americans would. It wasn't a very useful question and probably shouldn't be given a lot of importance.

I agree its a poorly constructed question, but NO, plenty of people wouldn't. In fact, 86% wouldn't. Would you condone violence against civilians was clear to them.

I'm not sure what you point is. There are posters above who misstated the question and complained that 14% who (in the misstated formulation) wouldn't distance themselves from ISIS. Maybe you don't think that 14% number is "plenty". That is subjective. My point is that not only did those posters misstate the question -- it had nothing to do with ISIS -- but that the question was posed in such a way that to elicit misleading answers.

Again, here is the question:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

Some posters above emphasize the "suicide bombing" and "civilian targets" parts of this. It would be just as reasonable to consider the "other forms of violence" and "defend Islam" aspects. If the same question were posed to Christians or Jews in the US (substituting their religion of course), I would fully expect that responses would be similar. Essentially, the question is written in such a way that the results aren't meaningful and don't say anything about Muslims that isn't likely true of members of other religions or Americans as a whole.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure it is weird to condone terrorist acts against civilians when your religion is threatened. When that is not even happening anywhere in the planet. Shows a paranoid extremist world view in a surprisingly high percentage of people.

The question was hypothetical. Would you condone violence against innocent civilians in defense of your religion? Maybe you wouldn't, but plenty of non-Muslim Americans would. It wasn't a very useful question and probably shouldn't be given a lot of importance.

I agree its a poorly constructed question, but NO, plenty of people wouldn't. In fact, 86% wouldn't. Would you condone violence against civilians was clear to them.

I'm not sure what you point is. There are posters above who misstated the question and complained that 14% who (in the misstated formulation) wouldn't distance themselves from ISIS. Maybe you don't think that 14% number is "plenty". That is subjective. My point is that not only did those posters misstate the question -- it had nothing to do with ISIS -- but that the question was posed in such a way that to elicit misleading answers.

Again, here is the question:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

Some posters above emphasize the "suicide bombing" and "civilian targets" parts of this. It would be just as reasonable to consider the "other forms of violence" and "defend Islam" aspects. If the same question were posed to Christians or Jews in the US (substituting their religion of course), I would fully expect that responses would be similar. Essentially, the question is written in such a way that the results aren't meaningful and don't say anything about Muslims that isn't likely true of members of other religions or Americans as a whole.

Jeff, the problem is that a vast majority in that percentage consider a "threat to Islam" something as simple as not being muslim, or not being a radical muslim, or being gay, of being an independent woman, or being a westerner, or whatever "infidel" is not exactly like their version of Islam.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, the problem is that a vast majority in that percentage consider a "threat to Islam" something as simple as not being muslim, or not being a radical muslim, or being gay, of being an independent woman, or being a westerner, or whatever "infidel" is not exactly like their version of Islam.

Unless you can find a poll asking American Muslims, "what do you consider a threat to Islam?" you are really not in a position to make any assumptions about individual poll responders. That is pretty presumptive of you. Obviously, this is part of what is wrong with the question. How one person interprets "threat to Islam" can be completely different than how another interprets it. If a significant number of American Muslims thought that "being a westerner" was a "threat to Islam" and justified suicide bombings, we would be having such bombings daily.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, the problem is that a vast majority in that percentage consider a "threat to Islam" something as simple as not being muslim, or not being a radical muslim, or being gay, of being an independent woman, or being a westerner, or whatever "infidel" is not exactly like their version of Islam.

Unless you can find a poll asking American Muslims, "what do you consider a threat to Islam?" you are really not in a position to make any assumptions about individual poll responders. That is pretty presumptive of you. Obviously, this is part of what is wrong with the question. How one person interprets "threat to Islam" can be completely different than how another interprets it. If a significant number of American Muslims thought that "being a westerner" was a "threat to Islam" and justified suicide bombings, we would be having such bombings daily.

Well, you are very presumptuous to say that Christians and Jews would answer that violence against civilians is an acceptable response to someone threatening your religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Seriously. Same county as the ISIS train killings days ago. He said Allau Akbar when he killed too. He was muslim too. Clearly, he felt inspired to do the same. Secondly, ISIS called on westerners generally to carry out atracks, regardless of whether they are on some ISIS membership sign up sheet. To see no relationship is blind indeed. Interesting though that if unrelated police officers who have never met, different organizations, across the country shoot people dead, a relationship may be inferred immediately as far as their motive. But many choose to ignore the motive in Munich and just look to diagnoses, but not motives.

There was one report that he said "Allah Akbar" and one report that he made an anti-foreigner slur. Why do you choose to accept one report and ignore the other? If there is a relationship to ISIS that only the blind can't see, can you please point out one single piece of evidence? He had no ISIS material in his home and German authorities have said there is no connection to Islamic extremism. He did, however, have a book about American school shooters. You seem to believe that inferring a motive to police officers is wrong but that inferring a motive to mass shooters is correct. Why the inconsistency -- the same inconsistency you criticize in the case of police?

Is it possible that he was bullied by other foreigners, maybe from different backgrounds?

+1. I've read in various sources that he yelled anti-Turk slurs and from my experience there's not much love lost between Turks and Iranians.