Question for Iraq war supporters

[mattskramer]

Can you imagine blaming the 99.995% for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%?

Sure I can --

Wow. Uh okay. Do you feel the same way about the anti-abortion groups and those, among them, who would bomb clinics and kill doctors?

 

[Doug]

Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.

Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.

Since there are about 1 billion Muslims, that's about 100 million people.

Of course, out of that one hundred million, only a fraction will actually go on to become suicide bombers. Say, only one out of a hundred.

Out of 100 million, that is one million people.

So, call the number of Muslims who would actively like to kill you, about a million. If that is too liberal, divide by ten again, and get 100,000. They've used up a few thousand in Iraq and Afghanistan and London and Spain and Indonesia and Israel and a few other places over the last few years.

So call it 75,000.

Nothing to worry about.

 

[Paulie]

Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.

Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.

Since there are about 1 billion Muslims, that's about 100 million people.

Of course, out of that one hundred million, only a fraction will actually go on to become suicide bombers. Say, only one out of a hundred.

Out of 100 million, that is one million people.

So, call the number of Muslims who would actively like to kill you, about a million. If that is too liberal, divide by ten again, and get 100,000. They've used up a few thousand in Iraq and Afghanistan and London and Spain and Indonesia and Israel and a few other places over the last few years.

So call it 75,000.

Nothing to worry about.

We should wage WW3 over a microcosm?

 

[Doug]

No, we should throw away all our nasty old guns and rely on everyone's sweet good nature to yield a happy outcome for all.

We should all hold hands and dance, singing Kum-ba-yah.

We should chant, Islam is a Religion of Peace. We are Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Oh, please forgive us for the Crusades and Slavery and Ronald Reagan.

 

[AllieBaba]

We should wage WW3 over a microcosm?

Hmmm...we shouldn't defend ourselves because there are a lot of people in the world who aren't attacking us?

That's just stupid. STUPID. As in moronic, idiotic, ignorant, and suicidal besides.

If a person has the ability to defend themselves, and has the ability to do good, why would they NOT DO IT?

That sort of thinking is indicative of the schizophrenia of the left. They're so used to being coddled, they can't imagine themselves in danger. Ever.

 

[Doug]

The Economist had an interesting editorial a few months ago on the question of Muslim world opinion, which you can read in the original here, along with a graph. I post the text here:

=======================================================

It's just about possible to assess the attitudes of the world's Muslims—but much harder to interpret the results


BACK in November 2001, as American bombers were driving Afghanistan's Taliban rulers from power, a reporter asked Donald Rumsfeld, then defence secretary, if the campaign was perversely boosting support for the Islamists. His reply was typically tart: it was “very difficult to go down and do a Gallup poll”—so he was “not inclined to chase that rabbit”.

Ever since then the Gallup polling group, based in Washington, DC, and many other research pundits have tried to prove Mr Rumsfeld wrong. They have used all the wizardry of market research to gauge the attitudes of Muslims all over the world—how they see democracy, what they like and dislike about the West, whether they condone terrorism.

And sure enough, some find the bottle of anti-Western extremism half-full, while others find it half-empty. It could hardly be otherwise when so many people on the streets of Cairo or Karachi seem to view the Western world with a confusing mix of awe, jealousy, admiration and resentment. And feelings about the big questions of culture and geopolitics are as ambivalent in the rich world as they are in Muslim states. Take a recent survey (see chart) of 28,000 people in 27 countries for the BBC World Service. Steven Kull of the University of Maryland, who co-produced the research, deduced that most people reject the idea of a “clash of civilisations”. But it would have been easy to draw a pessimistic conclusion: it is not comforting that 51% of Indonesians, or about 100m people, do expect a clash.

Still, however intractable reality may be, pollsters are under pressure to send a clear message. For the newspaper-skimming public, it may often be the spin that distinguishes one poll from another, not the tangled reality that emerges from the numbers. As pollsters know, if they are to hold the attention of busy people, they can't just say, “It's all very complicated.”

Gallup, for example, has in recent weeks put on a media road-show to promote the results of its second in-depth survey of Muslims in mainly Islamic countries. The first was conducted in 2001 and 2002, the follow-up in 2005 and 2006. What the data show is not reassuring to Americans: in most places, the percentage holding “unfavourable views” of the United States has risen—from 64% to 79% in Saudi Arabia, 33% to 62% in Turkey, 41% to 49% in Morocco. (Exceptions do exist: in Iran the figure fell from 63% to 52%.)

What Gallup's analysts have been stressing, however, is a more nuanced point. Muslims of both sexes, while strongly, and often increasingly, attached to their faith and its legal tradition, also say they admire some things about the Western world, including its free speech and democracy. In almost every country that Gallup surveyed, women as well as men thought that sharia, Islam's sacred law, should be the main or the sole basis of legislation. But female respondents saw no contradiction between this affirmation and the idea of rights and opportunities for women. A broad conclusion drawn by Gallup's wonks is that to be devoutly religious need not imply rejecting all Western values; and that religiosity is not correlated with extremism or violence.

A recent survey of British Muslims, commissioned by Policy Exchange, a right-of-centre think-tank, was presented to the public, and interpreted by the media, in almost the opposite spirit. And regardless of spin, there were some startling findings, suggesting that hard-line views are waxing not waning. Some 37% of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 would prefer to live under sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. In the younger group, 36% favoured death for those who abandon Islam, versus 19% of the oldies. Approval for groups like al-Qaeda was voiced by 13% of the youngsters and 3% of the old folk.

But Munira Mirza, one of the report's co-authors, felt that some conclusions drawn by the media (that Britain was nurturing a generation of extremists), were overdone. What the polls partly reflected, she thinks, is the alienation of youngsters of all backgrounds: since Muslims have an “alternative narrative”, they jump at the chance to give sharp answers to pollsters.

How can anybody tell? At a technical level, pollsters say the problems they face in a traditional culture—like reluctance to discuss hard questions with strangers—are formidable, but superable. Gallup's field-work consists of hour-long interviews in which the questioner is usually the same sex and nationality as the respondent. “Nothing sensitive can be asked at first, you just work to persuade people there is no right or wrong answer,” says Richard Burkholder, a Gallup researcher.

Another problem in Muslim lands, says Mary McIntosh of Princeton Survey Research, an American firm, is that when women are polled, male relatives insist on listening in and correcting the replies.

But Gallup's chief executive, Jim Clifton, believes that his group's research into Muslim opinion is sound enough to have huge policy implications. “Most political leaders believe a war about religion is going on, when we know it's a war about politics and poverty. Many people say Muslims hate our freedom, but they respect it.”

Mindful of its independence, Gallup declined a proposal from the Pentagon to sponsor its work in Iraq. But no study takes place in a total vacuum; could it be that more innocuous tie-ups affect the way research is presented? Since 2006, Gallup's partner in polling Muslims has been a London-based charity called the Coexist Foundation, whose trustees include a Saudi businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and some senior British Christians and Jews. Its mission is to improve relations between the three faiths and fight prejudice.

With a partner like that, is there a sub-conscious tendency, at least, to accentuate the positive—just as right-of-centre groups may have a stake in showing that multi-cultural policies are failing? Mr Clifton points out that Gallup has an overwhelming interest in guarding its integrity. “We have a name to protect,” he insists. “People may say we appear to be leaning towards the Muslims, but what we are finding is just the truth.” Besides, one consistent Gallup finding is that 8% of Muslims round the world—at least 80m people—strongly support terrorist acts against America. That can hardly be described as “happy talk”.

 

[Paulie]

Hmmm...we shouldn't defend ourselves because there are a lot of people in the world who aren't attacking us?

That's just stupid. STUPID. As in moronic, idiotic, ignorant, and suicidal besides.

Big difference between "defend ourselves" and wage perpetual WW3.

No, we should throw away all our nasty old guns and rely on everyone's sweet good nature to yield a happy outcome for all.

We should all hold hands and dance, singing Kum-ba-yah.

We should chant, Islam is a Religion of Peace. We are Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Oh, please forgive us for the Crusades and Slavery and Ronald Reagan.

To you both, and others..

What's the statistics for 1 murderer out of however many American citizens?

There are more Americans murdered each day in this country than people murdered by terrorism, and the grand total of the latter PALES in comparison to the grand total of the former.

Why don't we just bomb cities where we know murderers live? We very possibly could take some of them out. Shouldn't the casualties be worth the agenda of eventually stopping the murdering?

If no, then why are they in other countries? Because they're not Americans? Are American civilians worth more than Iraqi civilians, as humans?

All we're doing is trading who's being murdered, and by who, and the end result is really only death.

Human death is human death. There's no moral justification for it.

That's not Liberal or Conservative. That's HUMAN.

 

[AllieBaba]

We aren't waging the war. The war has been brought to us. And standing by and allowing pigs to target our innocents will not make us better, or make our people safer.

Like I said, look at your soft, white hands, and your flabby arms...enjoy the internet and your computer, where you can whine all you want about big bad America, sleep safe in your cozy house and (if you work) enjoy your ride to work. Meanwhile, people are dying so you can keep those things. That's the truth. You can deny it all you want, but take away the protection of the US armed forces, bring them home to sit around, and you will immediately become less safe. It doesn't matter where you live.

Eliminate them entirely, and eventually you will lose all those things you take advantage of, while criticizing and undercutting the people who make them possible for you.

 

[Paulie]

We aren't waging the war. The war has been brought to us. And standing by and allowing pigs to target our innocents will not make us better, or make our people safer.

Like I said, look at your soft, white hands, and your flabby arms...enjoy the internet and your computer, where you can whine all you want about big bad America, sleep safe in your cozy house and (if you work) enjoy your ride to work. Meanwhile, people are dying so you can keep those things. That's the truth. You can deny it all you want, but take away the protection of the US armed forces, bring them home to sit around, and you will immediately become less safe. It doesn't matter where you live.

Eliminate them entirely, and eventually you will lose all those things you take advantage of, while criticizing and undercutting the people who make them possible for you.

Bullshit.

You're such a fucking hypocrite it's not even funny. Everything you say you are against about people, you personify when you post. My soft, white hands, and my flabby arms? Who the fuck are YOU?

Our own government tells us that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than before 9/11, and you would have us believe that we are SAFER with our troops overseas fighting these wars??

'Fuck outta here, dude.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol. Don't be more of a nancy boy than you have to.

You're alive and safe because people die to make you so. You can whine, cuss, and piss your pants all you want about it, and do all you want to discredit,dishonor, and undermine the people who defend you.

It doesn't change the fact that there are people dying so you can spew your drivel without repercussions, you thankless piece of shit.

 

[Paulie]

Lol. Don't be more of a nancy boy than you have to.

You're alive and safe because people die to make you so. You can whine, cuss, and piss your pants all you want about it, and do all you want to discredit,dishonor, and undermine the people who defend you.

It doesn't change the fact that there are people dying so you can spew your drivel without repercussions, you thankless piece of shit.

I served in the military, maintaining ICBM's, so don't fucking tell me about people who defend me, and who I'm undermining.

You're a fucking fraud, kid. Everything you say is a contradiction of another thing you've said.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure you did.

And you keep carping about my hypocrisy but saying it doesn't make it so. If you can't actually cite references, kindly stop boring us with repetitive nonsense.

 

[Paulie]

Sure you did.

And you keep carping about my hypocrisy but saying it doesn't make it so. If you can't actually cite references, kindly stop boring us with repetitive nonsense.

Dude. I cited them in the other thread, you know, the one you already responded to?

Now even in these last few exchanges in THIS thread, you've personified it. "nancy boy"? "piece of shit"? Why, I thought you were AGAINST that kind of behavior? Because I used an awful wittle cawse wawd?

341st Missile Maintenence Squadron, Malmstrom AFB. 1999-2003.

Minuteman Missile Maintenence Tech, 2MO32A.

You don't have to believe it, I really couldn't fucking care less at this point about anything you say.

 

[AllieBaba]

Dude. I cited them in the other thread, you know, the one you already responded to?

Now even in these last few exchanges in THIS thread, you've personified it. "nancy boy"? "piece of shit"? Why, I thought you were AGAINST that kind of behavior? Because I used an awful wittle cawse wawd?

341st Missile Maintenence Squadron, Malmstrom AFB. 1999-2003.

Minuteman Missile Maintenence Tech, 2MO32A.

You don't have to believe it, I really couldn't fucking care less at this point about anything you say.

Here, nancy boy. Let's compare obscenities. This is your post prior to my nancy boy post.

"Bullshit.

You're such a fucking hypocrite it's not even funny.... Who the fuck are YOU?

.....'Fuck outta here, dude."

So who's the hypocrite?

And no, you didn't list my hypocrisy, you simply whined there, like you are here, that I'm a hypocrite. Why, I don't know, because you don't actually refer to any hypocrisy. You just use the word a lot. You must like the word. It's a big word, much too big for a nancy boy like you.

And I've labeled you with the appropriate label given your posts here. If you don't like the label, look to the persona you're projecting. Because you come across as a protected, puling, hostile and likely incontinent twerp.

 

[Paulie]

Here, nancy boy. Let's compare obscenities. This is your post prior to my nancy boy post.

"Bullshit.

You're such a fucking hypocrite it's not even funny.... Who the fuck are YOU?

.....'Fuck outta here, dude."

So who's the hypocrite?

And no, you didn't list my hypocrisy, you simply whined there, like you are here, that I'm a hypocrite. Why, I don't know, because you don't actually refer to any hypocrisy. You just use the word a lot. You must like the word. It's a big word, much too big for a nancy boy like you.

And I've labeled you with the appropriate label given your posts here. If you don't like the label, look to the persona you're projecting. Because you come across as a protected, puling, hostile and likely incontinent twerp.

Come on man. You really are that stupid, aren't you?

You made comments about people being "bigots", "elitists", and "rude" so far tonight, and so far you've already personified all 3 of them. I gave you examples of each. That you're head is obviously way too far up your own ass to actually GET THAT, is not my problem.

How am I the hypocrite in this case, when I haven't gone on ranting about how much I dislike bigots, elitists, and rude people, MULTIPLE TIMES? As far as I'm concerned, you can be all 3 of those if you choose, and I won't say a damn word about whether or not I like it. But you better damn well believe I'm going to call you out on it if you pretend not to like it, and then act the very same way you pretend not to be liking.

See, me, I'm a big boy Allie, and I can handle bigotry, rudeness, and elitism. I'm man enough to admit that I've been guilty of all 3 at some point in my life. It appears you still have a little growing up to do.

 

[maineman]

Most surveys of the attitudes of Muslims around the world towards the idea of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians have shown that the great majority of Muslims think they are wrong.

Only about ten percent of Muslims approve of them.

Since there are about 1 billion Muslims, that's about 100 million people.

Of course, out of that one hundred million, only a fraction will actually go on to become suicide bombers. Say, only one out of a hundred.

Out of 100 million, that is one million people.

So, call the number of Muslims who would actively like to kill you, about a million. If that is too liberal, divide by ten again, and get 100,000. They've used up a few thousand in Iraq and Afghanistan and London and Spain and Indonesia and Israel and a few other places over the last few years.

So call it 75,000.

Nothing to worry about.

are 75K enemies reason to wage war against a billion people?

 

[AllieBaba]

Pauly:
I'm not a dude, dude. I'm no doubt old enough to be your mother. And if I were, I'd slap you upside the head, take your keys, and curtail your internet privileges until 1. You learned to use the English language effectively, without using "fuck" every other sentence, and 2. You got a serious dose of reality. In addition, I'd cut your allowance and require you to get a menial job, because I've no doubt you don't have a college education, while at the same time requiring you to pay me rent for the privilege of living in my home. Because I'm fairly certain, nobody but your mother would put up with you.

And I can tell you what YOU would do. You'd have a big tantrum. You'd throw things and maybe dent the refrigerator. YOu might storm out of the house for a day or so, until your buddies' moms and/or girlfriends kicked you out of their homes and you sneaked back home to get some chow.

Then you'd settle in and knuckle down, and possibly learn a few things about life.

For example, the people who do the most for others are generally nicer people than anyone else out there. That means the people you resent the most...authority figures such as your parents, the United States, etc. Although they are annoying and frequently wrong, they certainly have the competition beat all to hell. Because the competition wants to put a big bad hurt on you. And the only thing between you and that hurt is, on the small scale, your mom, and, on the big scale, the US military.

So show a little respect.

 

[Dr Grump]

Come on man. You really are that stupid, aren't you?

You made comments about people being "bigots", "elitists", and "rude" so far tonight, and so far you've already personified all 3 of them. I gave you examples of each. That you're head is obviously way too far up your own ass to actually GET THAT, is not my problem.

How am I the hypocrite in this case, when I haven't gone on ranting about how much I dislike bigots, elitists, and rude people, MULTIPLE TIMES? As far as I'm concerned, you can be all 3 of those if you choose, and I won't say a damn word about whether or not I like it. But you better damn well believe I'm going to call you out on it if you pretend not to like it, and then act the very same way you pretend not to be liking.

See, me, I'm a big boy Allie, and I can handle bigotry, rudeness, and elitism. I'm man enough to admit that I've been guilty of all 3 at some point in my life. It appears you still have a little growing up to do.

You will learn, eventually, that Allie is a waste of space. She is living proof there should be some sort of test to enable you to vote. The fact she is allowed to is scary!

 

[Paulie]

Pauly:
I'm not a dude, dude. I'm no doubt old enough to be your mother.

No, what you are is a nameless, faceless person on an internet message board. You could be ANYONE.

And if I were, I'd slap you upside the head, take your keys, and curtail your internet privileges until 1. You learned to use the English language effectively, without using "fuck" every other sentence, and 2. You got a serious dose of reality. In addition, I'd cut your allowance and require you to get a menial job, because I've no doubt you don't have a college education, while at the same time requiring you to pay me rent for the privilege of living in my home. Because I'm fairly certain, nobody but your mother would put up with you.

And I can tell you what YOU would do. You'd have a big tantrum. You'd throw things and maybe dent the refrigerator. YOu might storm out of the house for a day or so, until your buddies' moms and/or girlfriends kicked you out of their homes and you sneaked back home to get some chow.

Then you'd settle in and knuckle down, and possibly learn a few things about life.

For example, the people who do the most for others are generally nicer people than anyone else out there. That means the people you resent the most...authority figures such as your parents, the United States, etc. Although they are annoying and frequently wrong, they certainly have the competition beat all to hell. Because the competition wants to put a big bad hurt on you. And the only thing between you and that hurt is, on the small scale, your mom, and, on the big scale, the US military.

So show a little respect.

So much typing, for such an inane purpose.

 

[eots]

You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.

why how many woman and children did carter murder for oil ?
how many American troops died on his watch ?
how many complete failures in intelligence that lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans under carter ?