Most non-Muslims support terrorism

[Augustus]

No attacks against police or millitary are simply acts of violence not terrorism. If and only if civilians are being directly targeted do we get terrorism. That's pretty well understood . in any kind of war or insurgency attacks on millitary or government targets is fair game. That is well understood. As is espionage and assassination of leaders.

The OP makes almost any act of organized attack into terrorism which is just a complete and deliberate distortion. Neither does the OP ask the specific question:- Is it justified to use suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against civilian non-millitary targets in defense of religion, nation or group in the course of oppression, war or resistance?

So the Oklahoma city bombing was not terrorism?

When all airlines were nationalised and thus government property they were fair game?

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Why is your definition of terrorism correct? What is it btw?

(and again, the subjectivity of such terms is another reason why they are not very useful)

 

[leibowde84]

Is it justified to use suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against civilian non-millitary targets in defense of religion, nation or group in the course of oppression, war or resistance?

You would agree that the answer to this question is "no", right?

 

[icehorse]

Can you explain the process you go through to decide upon a poll's validity before using it to support your arguments?

Number of people polled is a good indicator. Transparency of questions asked is as well. So neutrally worded questions posed to a large number of people seem like a good way to evaluate the validity of a poll. Also, the reputation of the polling organization.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you broaden the scope to define terrorism in such a way that it would even include self-defense, of course most people will support it. It's a crappy and misleading poll trying to defend religions that explicitly state to kill non-believers and do not associate with them. From Moses to Muhammad, violence was a divine order.

 

[sayak83]

You would agree that the answer to this question is "no", right?

Correct.

 

[sun rise]

Number of people polled is a good indicator. Transparency of questions asked is as well. So neutrally worded questions posed to a large number of people seem like a good way to evaluate the validity of a poll. Also, the reputation of the polling organization.

Also important is whether or not the results from other reputable pollsters basically agree within the margin of error.

 

[sayak83]

So the Oklahoma city bombing was not terrorism?

When all airlines were nationalised and thus government property they were fair game?

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Why is your definition of terrorism correct? What is it btw?

(and again, the subjectivity of such terms is another reason why they are not very useful)

Airlines carry civilians. Targeting of civilians is terrorism even if they are riding government bus.
By government buildings I mean police stations, parliament, munitions factory, cargo lines etc. These are deliberate targets during a war. Since insurgency is basically a war, such attacks do not equal a terrorism.

I am adhering to Geneva Convention Protocol of 1977 which applies as the Islamic insurgency are a group of non state actors engaged in a revolutionary conflict with various states.


1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 [ Link ] common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1[ Link ] (basically excludes state-state war) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.


Main part relevant here

PROTECTION OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION

Article 13 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

PROTECTION OF OBJECTS INDISPENSABLE TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION
Article 14 [ Link ] -- Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.

PROTECTION OF WORKS AND INSTALLATIONS CONTAINING DANGEROUS FORCES
Article 15 [ Link ] -- Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

PROTECTION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS AND OF PLACES OF WORSHIP
Article 16 [ Link ] -- Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.



These if done, is defined as terrorism by the Geneva Convention and are prohibited along with others a below:-

FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEES
Article 4 [ Link ] -- Fundamental guarantees

1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.

2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:

(a) violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;

(b) collective punishments;

(c) taking of hostages;

(d) acts of terrorism;

(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(f) slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;

(g) pillage;

(h) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Children shall be provided with the care and aid they require, and in particular:

(a) they shall receive an education, including religious and moral education, in keeping with the wishes of their parents, or in the absence of parents, of those responsible for their care;

(b) all appropriate steps shall be taken to facilitate the reunion of families temporarily separated;

(c) children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities;

(d) the special protection provided by this Article to children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall remain applicable to them if they take a direct part in hostilities despite the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) and are captured;

(e) measures shall be taken, if necessary, and whenever possible with the consent of their parents or persons who by law or custom are primarily responsible for their care, to remove children temporarily from the area in which hostilities are taking place to a safer area within the country and ensure that they are accompanied by persons responsible for their safety and well-being.

----------------------------

In case of an insurgency movement, a person joining such an organization considers the current government illegimate and its laws non-binding even if they may be prosecuted through them if caught (like spies are in a state conflict). However their actions can be morally and legally justified if they adhere to the Geneva conventions with their actions bring acts of war and not acts of crime.

 

[Augustus]

Airlines carry civilians. Targeting of civilians is terrorism even if they are riding government bus.

Army bases also contain civilians. Both were symbols of state power which is often the point.

I am adhering to Geneva Convention Protocol of 1977 which applies as the Islamic insurgency are a group of non state actors engaged in a revolutionary conflict with various states.

Why has the topic swapped from terrorism to insurgency?

Was Tim McVeigh an insurgent? The RAF?

These were the 2 examples I gave of people commonly considered terrorists who attacked military and government targets.

Anyway, that no one really agrees on what constitutes terrorism makes polling about terrorism inherently problematic which is the more pertinent issue.

 

[Augustus]

Number of people polled is a good indicator. 2583 Transparency of questions asked is as well. yes So neutrally worded questions posed to a large number of people seem like a good way to evaluate the validity of a poll. yes Also, the reputation of the polling organization. yougov - yes

So you consider the poll in the OP to be reliable then? Ticks all your boxes.

 

[Augustus]

Also important is whether or not the results from other reputable pollsters basically agree within the margin of error.

That doesn't even happen in simple 2 horse political races like the US election. MOEs are frequently non-overlapping even with massive, meticulously compiled samples with bundles of cash thrown at them as they are part of the marquee event of polling.

MOEs are pseudoscience.

 

[Augustus]

When you broaden the scope to define terrorism in such a way that it would even include self-defense, of course most people will support it. It's a crappy and misleading poll trying to defend religions that explicitly state to kill non-believers and do not associate with them.

Do you also think polls in general are crappy and misleading?

 

[Augustus]

The fact that one can get a poll to reflect whatever view is desired by massaging the questions just so is fairly well documented. I was under the working assumption that everyone already knew this.

Apparently not as people quote polls all the time and put great stock in what they say (if it supports their preconceived opinions that is otherwise they get hypercritical).

 

[Augustus]

To that end, I would say that a person who challenges a pollster's methodology should be welcomed, but a person who says all polls are too untrustworthy and stupid should be looked upon warily.

Even if some polls are accurate, this only makes any difference if you can readily identify an accurate from an inaccurate poll. If you can't tell the difference then you need to treat them all as being inaccurate.

Can you give me your guidelines for telling the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate poll?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you also think polls in general are crappy and misleading?

I think of them like tools. When used properly, they can be used to achieve good things, or they can be misused and suddenly everyone's a terrorist because pretty much everyone intents to defend themselves, which often includes varying degrees of violence. A foreign military invades, no **** I'm going to support, and possibly even have to myself, intention violence against the military and government of that foreign nation. But if I plant homemade claymores in the event of fighting, that would not make me a terrorist. Wouldn't be the smartest thing to do, but even if I could Tom Clancy a super-bomb into one of their bases, that wouldn't make me a terrorist.

 

[icehorse]

So you consider the poll in the OP to be reliable then? Ticks all your boxes.

In what way do the recent immigrant terrorists in - say - the UK fit into the categories in the OP?

 

[Grumpuss]

Even if some polls are accurate, this only makes any difference if you can readily identify an accurate from an inaccurate poll. If you can't tell the difference then you need to treat them all as being inaccurate.

Can you give me your guidelines for telling the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate poll?

There's and certain sample size and randomization that confer a scientific validity. Better pollsters do this, and you may notice they offer a "sampling error" of 2-3% ? That's done for a reason, sir.

 

[TheloniousX]

I have yet to read through all of the comments, but am of the thinking that Muslim terrorism abroad has been largely cultivated from western influence over the last 25-30 years with greater emphasis since 9/11/2001.

The majority of what we have seen from the media here in the US has a lot to do with it. Polls will never be accurate and are in fact biased.

I am not a Muslim, but have been skeptical since the first Iraq war.

 

[sun rise]

There's and certain sample size and randomization that confer a scientific validity. Better pollsters do this, and you may notice they offer a "sampling error" of 2-3% ? That's done for a reason, sir.

Yes. Confidence interval and sampling error are fundamental to statistical analysis. And as we've seen polling is inexact. We need to pay some attention to it because it's a useful tool. But it's not perfect.

 

[Grumpuss]

Yes. Confidence interval and sampling error are fundamental to statistical analysis. And as we've seen polling is inexact. We need to pay some attention to it because it's a useful tool. But it's not perfect.

Yes... uhh... that's the basis for including "sampling error" and bolstering methodology. But noting that polling is "not perfect" doesn't invalidate it.

 

[sayak83]

Army bases also contain civilians. Both were symbols of state power which is often the point.



Why has the topic swapped from terrorism to insurgency?

Was Tim McVeigh an insurgent? The RAF?

These were the 2 examples I gave of people commonly considered terrorists who attacked military and government targets.

Anyway, that no one really agrees on what constitutes terrorism makes polling about terrorism inherently problematic which is the more pertinent issue.

In an army base, the civilians are the incidental target and fall under collateral damage category.
Tim McVeigh was a single person, and he would simply be a violent criminal. Similar to the guy who shot FDR.

Yes RAF was an insurgency. Any organized group that seeks overthrow of a government or state by violent means is an insurgency. And as far as I know, they did use terrorism targeting civilians.