Most non-Muslims support terrorism

[Grumpuss]

Other people are prejudiced of course, never one's self...

I never claimed to be perfect. I do try to look at what all sides present though, before making up my mind.

Can you explain the 'far left' prejudice being displayed in the OP or the poll results?

Bootstrapping: one poll is <appears to be> flawed, so none of them should be trusted. I don't know if it was just an example for use of invalidating polls, or if you truly feel that way about Islam and terrorism.

 

[Augustus]

Bootstrapping: one poll is <appears to be> flawed, so none of them should be trusted. I don't know if it was just an example for use of invalidating polls, or if you truly feel that way about Islam and terrorism.

Feel what way? I'm explaining why polls are far less accurate than people believe and narratives constructed on the back of them without massive caveats are usually fake news.

2 polls here: 10% of Saudis have a positive/somewhat positive view of IS or 32% of Saudis have a positive/somewhat positive view of IS.

Given that there is no way to actually judge which of these, if either, is accurate then they are meaningless as they are basically saying 0-50+% of Saudis support IS.

We can't trust the MOE on very simple political polls, as the graph I showed demonstrates (there is more research on this too).

Complex subjective questions are obviously less accurate than very simple political horse races, I'm sure you can agree on that.

It is easier to construct a broadly representative sample from the electorate as a whole than it is for a small minority community. I'm sure you can agree on that too.

So at the very least we have a much larger MOE for the 'terrorist' type polls than the political ones, and answers which are subject to massive fluctuations based on minor changes in wording or framing of questions.

When this is combined with the idea that tacit support for terrorism is above zero for non-Muslims (again something I'm sure you can agree on), it becomes hard too see many polls as being of any value as the control (non-Muslim) sample +/- MOE will often overlap with the Muslim sample +/- MOE.

Distorting narrative: 'Clinton leads by 2%'
Actual narrative: 'Poll inconclusive: Race too close to call'

 

[Grumpuss]

I get it: you think no polls matter because you can find one or more flawed polls. The alternative is anecdotal evidence, where you instead have to trust someone telling you his/her singular take on an issue. No thanks.

I can accept polls with a grain of salt and look for the polling firms that have been more reliable in the past.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also obviously any government will try to label activities against it as terrorism.

That's one of the things that separates "regular" violence from terrorism, and that is a political motive. It has absolutely no bearing on how many people are killed, or even if anyone is killed at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When this is combined with the idea that tacit support for terrorism is above zero for non-Muslims (again something I'm sure you can agree on), it becomes hard too see many polls as being of any value as the control (non-Muslim) sample +/- MOE will often overlap with the Muslim sample +/- MOE.

Too bad we don't actually know how many non-Muslims actually support terrorism, and not just "intentional violence." Of course terrorism is intentional, just like fire is hot.

 

[sayak83]

That's one of the things that separates "regular" violence from terrorism, and that is a political motive. It has absolutely no bearing on how many people are killed, or even if anyone is killed at all.

No we disagree on this. It's only when civilians are being intentionally targeted that a violent action for political or religious or any other ideological purpose becomes terrorism.
Of this is a matter of definition. If one defines terrorism as any violent action against government or civilian for political purposes, then many many cases of terrorism will be justified and lawful, examples being revolutionary movements.

 

[icehorse]

So what about this poll stands out as 'distorting what is true' in a way different to other polls you cite as being reliable?

According your poll, 9% of non-Muslims think it's acceptable to kill civilians "to protect their religious faith".

I don't care what religion we're talking about, that's a real problem.

And perhaps more to your point, that particular bar on your chart seems to be a good "apples to apples" comparison with the polls I've seen given to Muslims.

This website cites three recent polls in the UK and between 20-30% of Muslims living in the UK are ok with terrorism in defense of their faith. So that's 2 to 3 times as many?

Muslim Opinion Polls

So if we were to conclude something like: "Across many religions terrorism in defense of faith is sometimes seen as valid - and this is always a problem - but the percentages are significantly higher among Muslims."

I think that would be a good, objective summary.

 

[Grumpuss]

No we disagree on this. It's only when civilians are being intentionally targeted that a violent action for political or religious or any other ideological purpose becomes terrorism.
Of this is a matter of definition. If one defines terrorism as any violent action against government or civilian for political purposes, then many many cases of terrorism will be justified and lawful, examples being revolutionary movements.

Correct. It's amazing that some people can be so obtuse, that they fail to see this fact. If you have a movement that targets innocent civilians for abuse and killing, rather than government, then it is terrorism. That's the whole point; you make the populace weary of whatever issue is key to the terrorists, and a political solution results.

When the movement instead targets only the government or their direct sympathizers, then they are termed instead a "guerrilla movement" or "insurgency".

Invalidating how terrorism is inherently wrong by sympathizing with their issues is a weird feature of Leftists. Branding any kind of vocal dissent that disagrees with the mainstream, such as Black Lives Matter, as terrorism, is a weird feature of the Right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No we disagree on this. It's only when civilians are being intentionally targeted that a violent action for political or religious or any other ideological purpose becomes terrorism.

Political scientists disagree with you as well. The targeting of civilians is not a requirement to be considered a terrorists. Such as, a number of ecoterrorist groups make it a policy that no sentient beings are harmed during their operations, and they are known for blowing up buildings and operation rigs more than anything. While there is no universal definition of terrorism, most governments and NGOs do go by some sort of checklist system. And while they aren't 100% consistent, the whys are far more prominent feature in defining terrorism.

Of this is a matter of definition. If one defines terrorism as any violent action against government or civilian for political purposes, then many many cases of terrorism will be justified and lawful, examples being revolutionary movements.

Generally speaking terrorism must involve illegal behaviors. It isn't legal to destroy and sabotage someone's property, it isn't legal to abduct people, it generally isn't legal to kill them, and causing mass-fear and panic also tend to be illegal.

 

[sayak83]

Political scientists disagree with you as well. The targeting of civilians is not a requirement to be considered a terrorists. Such as, a number of ecoterrorist groups make it a policy that no sentient beings are harmed during their operations, and they are known for blowing up buildings and operation rigs more than anything. While there is no universal definition of terrorism, most governments and NGOs do go by some sort of checklist system. And while they aren't 100% consistent, the whys are far more prominent feature in defining terrorism.

Generally speaking terrorism must involve illegal behaviors. It isn't legal to destroy and sabotage someone's property, it isn't legal to abduct people, it generally isn't legal to kill them, and causing mass-fear and panic also tend to be illegal.

Gandhi's movement was terrorism them. So was American revolution. Etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Gandhi's movement was terrorism them.

Violence and spreading fear were not his goals. It was not a terrorist movement.

So was American revolution.

No, it was high treason.

 

[sayak83]

Violence and spreading fear were not his goals. It was not a terrorist movement.

No, it was high treason.

We will not agree here. I have defined terrorism and if you do some research, you will see lots of experts agree with me that violence and intimidation of civilians population is necessary for something to be terrorism. Nevertheless, going by your definition, I consider that under many conditions using violence against government is perfectly justifiable form of resistance. So as per your definition I do think many cases of terrorism is perfectly justified. If a government is deemed illegimate or oppressive it can be resisted through violent means.

American revolution is both a terrorism and treason. Obviously as per your definition.

 

[Grumpuss]

We will not agree here. I have defined terrorism and if you do some research, you will see lots of experts agree with me that violence and intimidation of civilians population is necessary for something to be terrorism. Nevertheless, going by your definition, I consider that under many conditions using violence against government is perfectly justifiable form of resistance. So as per your definition I do think many cases of terrorism is perfectly justified. If a government is deemed illegimate or oppressive it can be resisted through violent means.

American revolution is both a terrorism and treason. Obviously as per your definition.

Oooooh. Ouch. Shots fired, baby!

 

[sayak83]

Let's consider the fact that violent action by the ANC against South African government was an important and crucial part of the struggle against apartheid. I would like an account about whether this is terrorism, and if so is it morally justified or a criminal act. Unless one is going the relativistic route is terrorist is whoever is inconvenient to my interests right now (which US and many other nations seems to indulge in), I would propose that the only consistent definition that avoids moral ambiguity Is one I have described here.

Violent political resistanceEdit
Following the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, the ANC leadership concluded that the methods of non-violence such as those utilised by Gandhi against the British Empire during their colonisation of India were not suitable against the Apartheid system. A military wing was formed in 1961, called Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), meaning "Spear of the Nation", with Mandela as its first leader. MK operations during the 1960s primarily involved targeting and sabotaging government facilities. Mandela was arrested in 1962, convicted of sabotage in 1964 and sentenced to life imprisonment on Robben Island, along with Sisulu and other ANC leaders after the Rivonia Trial.

During the 1970s and 1980s the ANC leadership in exile under Oliver Tambo made the decision to target Apartheid government leadership, command and control, secret police, and military–industrial complex assets and personnel in decapitation strikes, targeted killings, and guerilla actions such as bomb explosions in facilities frequented by military and government personnel. A number of civilians were also killed in these attacks. Examples of these include the Amanzimtoti bombing,[5] the Sterland bomb in Pretoria,[6] the Wimpy bomb in Pretoria,[7] the Juicy Lucy bomb in Pretoria[6] and the Magoo's bar bombing in Durban.[8] ANC acts of sabotage aimed at government institutions included the bombing of the Johannesburg Magistrates Court, the attack on the Koeberg nuclear power station, the rocket attack on Voortrekkerhoogte in Pretoria, and the 1983 Church Street bombing in Pretoria, which killed 16 and wounded 130.

The ANC was classified as a terrorist [9] organisation by the South African government and by some Western countries including the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the ANC had a London office from 1978 to 1994 at 28 Penton Street in Islington, north London, now marked with a plaque.[10]

During this period, the South African military engaged in a number of raids and bombings on ANC bases in Botswana, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dulcie September, a member of the ANC who was investigating the arms trade between France and South Africa was assassinated in Paris in 1988. In the ANC's training camps, the ANC faced allegations that dissident members faced torture, detention without trial and even execution in ANC prison camps.[11][12] In South Africa, the campaign to make the townships "ungovernable" led to kangaroo courts and mob executions of opponents and collaborators, often by necklacing.[13][14]

There was violence between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party. For example, between 1985 and 1989, 5,000 civilians were killed in fighting between the two parties.[15] Massacres of each other's supporters include the Shell House massacre and the Boipatong massacre.

As the years progressed, the African National Congreses attacks, coupled with international pressure and internal dissent, increased in South Africa. The ANC received financial and tactical support from the USSR, which orchestrated military involvement with surrogate Cuban forces through Angola. However, the fall of the USSR after 1991 brought an end to its funding of the ANC and also changed the attitude of some Western governments that had previously supported the Apartheid regime as an ally against communism. The South African government found itself under increasing internal and external pressure, and this, together with a more conciliatory tone from the ANC, resulted in a change in the political landscape. State President F.W. de Klerk unbanned the ANC and other banned organisations on 2 February 1990, and began peace talks for a negotiated settlement to end Apartheid.

 

[Augustus]

Let's consider the fact that violent action by the ANC against South African government was an important and crucial part of the struggle against apartheid. I would like an account about whether this is terrorism, and if so is it morally justified or a criminal act.

People are coalitional animals, and seem to be genetically predisposed to resent unfair treatment of their 'side'.

What you consider morally justifiable depends on the degree of unfairness experienced by your side (or a side you 'support').

The ANC (MK anyway) was a terrorist group that killed non-combatants, the ANC was violent and criminal, the ANC oppressed people in its strongholds and sanctioned 'necklacing' (filling a tyre with petrol putting it round neck and setting alight) of alleged traitors (perhaps just people who stood up to them), the ANC was engaged in ethnic violence against Zulus . They were also closely allied with the SACP which was a Comintern front group with all the ethical implications that involves (how people should judge the ethics of Communist agents is another interesting topic).

The ANC was also a legitimate revolutionary group that fought against a horrendous regime at great cost to themselves, did many good things and contained many highly honourable people.

These are not mutually exclusive. There are no nice clean dividing lines between good and bad. Some things were justified, other were not.

History will judge the ANC favourably because they won, were the 'least bad' and because Mandela was a great man. Just like history will judge the Allied firebombing and deliberate incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians during WW2 favourably as they won and 'because Hitler/evil Japan'.

In the 'right' circumstances most of us will accept pretty much anything our 'side' does under some kind of idea of equity/reciprocity/necessity/lesser of 2 evils. Morality in this case is intrinsically caught up in our sense of group identity and eventual outcomes. We are also not consistent in how we judge states v sub-state groups.

From the right perspective, terrorists are usually highly moral people willing to sacrifice themselves and their own quality of life for the greater good. OBL gave up a life of luxury to stand up to bullies and fight for the oppressed. Of course if you do not identify with their coalitional identity, terrorists are evil fanatics. It's just like how an Iraqi might have a very different perspective on the ethics of the US invasion and the personal morality of US soldiers than a right-wing American likely would.

 

[Augustus]

According your poll, 9% of non-Muslims think it's acceptable to kill civilians "to protect their religious faith".

I don't care what religion we're talking about, that's a real problem.

And perhaps more to your point, that particular bar on your chart seems to be a good "apples to apples" comparison with the polls I've seen given to Muslims.

This website cites three recent polls in the UK and between 20-30% of Muslims living in the UK are ok with terrorism in defense of their faith. So that's 2 to 3 times as many?

Muslim Opinion Polls

Thanks. Perfect examples for my point nicely aggregated to make it very very clear to even the most ardent 'Poll Truthers'. Those polls are all over the place.

a) 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
b) 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report terror plot to police.
c) 48% if British Muslims would not report a person "linked to terror."
d) About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack

This is obviously nonsense - fake news based on pseudoscience. Why feel the need to actively defend such clear charlatanism?

Other than because they say what you would like them to say, why do you trust them?

So if we were to conclude something like: "Across many religions terrorism in defense of faith is sometimes seen as valid - and this is always a problem - but the percentages are significantly higher among Muslims."

I think that would be a good, objective summary.

I'd expand religions to ideologies as the distinction is purely arbitrary (although anti-theists tend to want to see religions as having some magically unique violence causing qualities).

Today, the number 1 'brand' of terrorism is Salafi-Jihadism, back in the 60s it would have been revolutionary Marxism, I expect we will see a rise in right-wing nationalist terrorism over the coming years, and probably a new form of revolutionary socialism too.

Romantic or utopian violence is part of our psyche and goes through cycles.

 

[sayak83]

People are coalitional animals, and seem to be genetically predisposed to resent unfair treatment of their 'side'.

What you consider morally justifiable depends on the degree of unfairness experienced by your side (or a side you 'support').

The ANC (MK anyway) was a terrorist group that killed non-combatants, the ANC was violent and criminal, the ANC oppressed people in its strongholds and sanctioned 'necklacing' (filling a tyre with petrol putting it round neck and setting alight) of alleged traitors (perhaps just people who stood up to them), the ANC was engaged in ethnic violence against Zulus . They were also closely allied with the SACP which was a Comintern front group with all the ethical implications that involves (how people should judge the ethics of Communist agents is another interesting topic).

The ANC was also a legitimate revolutionary group that fought against a horrendous regime at great cost to themselves, did many good things and contained many highly honourable people.

These are not mutually exclusive. There are no nice clean dividing lines between good and bad. Some things were justified, other were not.

History will judge the ANC favourably because they won, were the 'least bad' and because Mandela was a great man. Just like history will judge the Allied firebombing and deliberate incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians during WW2 favourably as they won and 'because Hitler/evil Japan'.

In the 'right' circumstances most of us will accept pretty much anything our 'side' does under some kind of idea of equity/reciprocity/necessity/lesser of 2 evils. Morality in this case is intrinsically caught up in our sense of group identity and eventual outcomes. We are also not consistent in how we judge states v sub-state groups.

From the right perspective, terrorists are usually highly moral people willing to sacrifice themselves and their own quality of life for the greater good. OBL gave up a life of luxury to stand up to bullies and fight for the oppressed. Of course if you do not identify with their coalitional identity, terrorists are evil fanatics. It's just like how an Iraqi might have a very different perspective on the ethics of the US invasion and the personal morality of US soldiers than a right-wing American likely would.

There is a light and day difference between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ANC. In any war, there will be some criminal violence going on. Ordering and planning large scale attacks on civilians or school children is quite different.

 

[Augustus]

There is a light and day difference between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ANC. In any war, there will be some criminal violence going on. Ordering and planning large scale attacks on civilians or school children is quite different.

That's fine, but not really relevant as I never made the comparison. You asked a question about the ANC and I answered it.

Terrorism is a complex issue and its ethics is very subjective and based on one's ideological leanings.

Go back to the 60s/70s and quite a lot of the equivalent of today's uber-PC liberals would likely have had some degree of sympathy, if not outright support of leftist terror groups.

Many people will excuse terrorism when injustices that 'we' commit are less than injustices that 'they'. There is plenty of evidence for this (Ireland, Kurdistan, Palestine, etc).

 

[sayak83]

That's fine, but not really relevant as I never made the comparison. You asked a question about the ANC and I answered it.

Terrorism is a complex issue and its ethics is very subjective and based on one's ideological leanings.

Go back to the 60s/70s and quite a lot of the equivalent of today's uber-PC liberals would likely have had some degree of sympathy, if not outright support of leftist terror groups.

Many people will excuse terrorism when injustices that 'we' commit are less than injustices that 'they'. There is plenty of evidence for this (Ireland, Kurdistan, Palestine, etc).

Actually it was a question directed at Shadow Wolf.

 

[icehorse]

Today, the number 1 'brand' of terrorism is Salafi-Jihadism, back in the 60s it would have been revolutionary Marxism, I expect we will see a rise in right-wing nationalist terrorism over the coming years, and probably a new form of revolutionary socialism too.

Romantic or utopian violence is part of our psyche and goes through cycles.

I agree that religion doesn't have a lock on bad behavior. But that doesn't mean we can't attack the problem one step at a time.

As for your broader perspective, you've said this before, and you might be right. My perspective is that it's worth fighting for a change.