Cia, Mi6 Helped Gadhafi Persecute Dissidents, Says Watchdog

[brvheart 1,752]

First of all, **** you all for talking about me like I'm not here.2nd:

You are a terrible reader. The question was phrased "to defend Islam from its enemies." So in actuality, there are (perhaps), 196,320 Muslims in America who think that suicide bombings are a pretty good idea as an act of defense. Now, if you assume that the "enemies" are all things American, as so many Al-Qaedans appear to, then that is a concern. But the question does not state that, explicitly, or implicitly.I bet if you asked Americans whether bombing non-military targets was justified to defend America, then you'd have a lot more than 8% agreeing with you.

**** you. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything I said in this thread is retarded.Of course the large majority of ALL Americans, not just Christians, would say that bombing non-military targets was justified to defend America, since "defend" implies a threat. That's not at all what the question was asking and it's not at all what the people are answering.The question is about non-military SUICIDE BOMBING and non-military vigilante justice or violence in order to further the growth or defense of one particular religion. Zero.01 percent (+/- 0.01%) of Christians would say that SUICIDE BOMBING AND VIOLENCE against non-military targets, to further or defend the cause of Jesus Christ, would be justified.3rd: Islam isn't a country, so what "enemies" could they possibly be referring to? Cartoons? Jesus? Any living human that doesn't believe in Islam?

[mrdannyg 274]

First of all, **** you all for talking about me like I'm not here.2nd:**** you. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with everything I said in this thread is retarded.Of course the large majority of ALL Americans, not just Christians, would say that bombing non-military targets was justified to defend America, since "defend" implies a threat. That's not at all what the question was asking and it's not at all what the people are answering.The question is about non-military SUICIDE BOMBING and non-military vigilante justice or violence in order to further the growth or defense of one particular religion. Zero.01 percent (+/- 0.01%) of Christians would say that SUICIDE BOMBING AND VIOLENCE against non-military targets, to further or defend the cause of Jesus Christ, would be justified.3rd: Islam isn't a country, so what "enemies" could they possibly be referring to? Cartoons? Jesus? Any living human that doesn't believe in Islam?

Just so you know, this is both illogical and likely racist. I think you're just patriotic, which is taking the form of ignorance and racism.The suggestion that Islam cannot have enemies any more than the United States can have enemies is ridiculous. They are a group of people, who are attacked (or feel they are attacked) based on what they share. Those attackers are enemies.The question you quoted used the word "defend". As per your instructions, that implies a threat. Whether that threat is real or imagined is irrelevant - the question implied the people felt a threat.If Christians, as a whole, were asked whether attacking non-military targets was justified to defend Christianity, they would say yes. Now, because Christians are used to having control of the government, they would consider a suicide attack to be a smelly, uncouth brown person tactic, and instead would just order a government-funded group of paid mercenaries soldiers to drop bombs from overhead instead. There is no goddamn difference.

[brvheart 1,752]

agree to disagree. (since what you said isn't correct, and you continue to change the question that was asked. What's totally irrelevent to this discussion is what they would say if you worded the question to mean or say something completely different than what was asked. Do I think Christianity has enemies? No. Because I don't see Christianity as an entity that needs to be defended. I worship Jesus Christ the person, and according to the Bible, "vengeance is my says the Lord" (not to mention that sweet passage that Samuel L. quotes in Pulp). I realize that I don't speak for the general ****ing idiotic public, but you can't change the question. Interviewer: Are you a Christian?Christian1: *looks around nervously* nnnooooo! *runs away*Christian2: YES! I will be glad to self-identify as a Christian.Interviewer: Do you think that other Christians are justified to defend Christianity against it's enemies with the use of violence including suicide bombings?Christian2: What enemies? The media? Are you drunk? There is no way in hell that in this situation you would have more than 0.01% of the Christians respond with a yes.)

[mrdannyg 274]

agree to disagree. (since what you said isn't correct, and you continue to change the question that was asked. What's totally irrelevent to this discussion is what they would say if you worded the question to mean or say something completely different that what was asked. Do I think Christianity has enemies? No. Because I don't see Christianity as an entity that needs to be defended. I worship Jesus Christ the person, and according to the Bible, "vengeance is my says the Lord" (not to mention that sweet passage that Samuel L. quotes in Pulp). I realize that I don't speak for the general ****ing idiotic public, but you can't change the question. Interviewer: Are you a Christian?Christian1: *looks around nervously* nnnooooo! *runs away*Christian2: YES! I will be glad to self-identify as a Christian.Interviewer: Do you think that other Christian's are justified to defend Christianity against it's enemies with the use of violence including suicide bombings?Christian2: What enemies? The media? Are you drunk? There is no way in hell that in this situation you would have more than 0.01% of the Christians respond with a yes.)

That's funny - I almost posted "agree to disagree" and a bunch of white stuff after it too. We must both be very sure we are right, and only arguing to avoid giving the impression we are not able to back up what we are certain about.I'm glad you don't feel that your beliefs/faith requires defending. Apparently others, with different faiths, disagree.Also, pretend your faux-interviewer asks the question, and the only allowable answers are "strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree." Questioning their sobriety is not counted as an answer. Do you think less than 1% of Christian-identifying people disagree that use of suicide bombings would be justified? The reason I 'changed the question' to use non-military targets instead of suicide bombing is because most people would know identify suicide bombing with Islam/terrorist threats, and be biased against it, even though I can't understand why it is morally worse than any other act with non-military targets.

[brvheart 1,752]

Also, pretend your faux-interviewer asks the question, and the only allowable answers are "strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree." Questioning their sobriety is not counted as an answer. Do you think less than 1% of Christian-identifying people disagree that use of suicide bombings would be justified?

I honestly believe that, at least, 98% would say strongly disagree, and 1.5% would say disagree, with the remaining not understanding the question/actually being retarded/really thinking that suicide bombs are good.I could be wrong, but it would really surprise me. (remember, Catholics are the biggest group of "Christians" and they think suicide is a one-way ticket to hell.)

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I honestly believe that, at least, 98% would say strongly disagree, and 1.5% would say disagree, with the remaining not understanding the question/actually being retarded/really thinking that suicide bombs are good.I could be wrong, but it was really surprise me. (remember, Catholics are the biggest group of "Christians" and they think suicide is a one-way ticket to hell.)

As in 2007, very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam from its enemies; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances.Suicide bombings and other forms of violence in defense of Islam is the question. Focus more on the term violence and less on suicide bombing.If somebody attacked the Holy City of Mecca it would be viewed as an attack against all of Islam and to defend Mecca you can bet that a large number of Muslims wouldn't have a problem with civilians being hurt in it's defense. Just like Americans have little problem when civilians are collateral damage in defense of American interests.

[mrdannyg 274]

I honestly believe that, at least, 98% would say strongly disagree, and 1.5% would say disagree, with the remaining not understanding the question/actually being retarded/really thinking that suicide bombs are good.I could be wrong, but it would really surprise me. (remember, Catholics are the biggest group of "Christians" and they think suicide is a one-way ticket to hell.)

Oh, I don't doubt that specifically saying "suicide bombing" would generate a near-zero response. But I assume the big issue with suicide bombing is that they target innocent people, not that the attacker dies. If I'm wrong about that, then I've wasted our time. But replace "suicide bomb" with the white-person version of the same thing, and I think you get an equivalent response from Christians.

[brvheart 1,752]

Oh, I don't doubt that specifically saying "suicide bombing" would generate a near-zero response. But I assume the big issue with suicide bombing is that they target innocent people, not that the attacker dies. If I'm wrong about that, then I've wasted our time. But replace "suicide bomb" with the white-person version of the same thing, and I think you get an equivalent response from Christians.

But I don't think there is a "white person version" of that. You can't say bomb them, because then we are no longer talking about a religious attack, we are talking about a government based military attack. The white person version is a Columbine-type gun crime, which would illicit the exact same percentage as the suicide bombing.

[brvheart 1,752]

As in 2007, very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam from its enemies; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances.Suicide bombings and other forms of violence in defense of Islam is the question. Focus more on the term violence and less on suicide bombing.If somebody attacked the Holy City of Mecca it would be viewed as an attack against all of Islam and to defend Mecca you can bet that a large number of Muslims wouldn't have a problem with civilians being hurt in it's defense. Just like Americans have little problem when civilians are collateral damage in defense of American interests.

No one is attacking or even threatening to attack Mecca or any other Islamic holy place, and yet 200,000 AMERICANS think that violence AND suicide bombings are ALREADY justifiable to defend their faith against an unknown enemy. (I feel like I'm taking some sort a Zoolander-based crazy pill)

[FCP Bob 1,312]

No one is attacking or even threatening to attack Mecca or any other Islamic holy place, and yet 200,000 AMERICANS think that violence AND suicide bombings are ALREADY justifiable to defend their faith against an unknown enemy. (I feel like I'm taking some sort a Zoolander-based crazy pill)

How hard is it to understand the question.They are asking is it okay for civilians to be hurt in defending Islam. Is it okay for civilians to be hurt in the defense of the US of A.No where does it say that today anybody is attacking Islam in the question. The question is if you had to defend Islam is it okay for violence to sometimes be done to civilians.Your problem is that you're reading the question differently than it is.

[El Guapo 8]

(I feel like I'm taking some sort a Zoolander-based crazy pill)

You're not, MGD is trying to make a comparison that isn't there.

[brvheart 1,752]

How hard is it to understand the question.They are asking is it okay for civilians to be hurt in defending Islam. Is it okay for civilians to be hurt in the defense of the US of A.No where does it say that today anybody is attacking Islam in the question. The question is if you had to defend Islam is it okay for violence to sometimes be done to civilians.Your problem is that you're reading the question differently than it is.

Oh, ok.

[mrdannyg 274]

No one is attacking or even threatening to attack Mecca or any other Islamic holy place, and yet 200,000 AMERICANS think that violence AND suicide bombings are ALREADY justifiable to defend their faith against an unknown enemy. (I feel like I'm taking some sort a Zoolander-based crazy pill)

We agreed that the justification in this case implied a threat. No one is attacking Mecca now, but the question is worded to consider future potential, not ALREADY JUSTIFIED. The 200,000 Americans think that violence is justified if their faith were to be threatened. The question didn't ask if those 200,000 people think that the current threat level justifies violence, nor whether past violent actions were justified.

You're not, MGD is trying to make a comparison that isn't there.

Half-points, since the question was worded to deal with only a specific type of situation that has happened in the past.Brv is drawing a significant line between countries and ethnic groups, which I just don't see. Both are self-identified groups, where some take the responsibility for defending many. Of course there is a difference - the US' identity as a group is widely recognized - not true for Islam. The people responsible for America's defence are widely recognized, and (mostly) publicly identify themselves as such - not true for Islam. I just don't get why these differences are relevant. The question asks whether a violent act with non-military targets is justified as an act of defence. From a moral standpoint, I don't think an Islamic person who believes they are defending Islam by attacking US citizens is any different than a US military attack on a non-military target in an Islamic country.Right or wrong, the US military is largely viewed as a Christian force. So many Catholics don't like suicide, so they use bombs strapped to planes instead of themselves, but if they're both targeting innocents, what the shit is the difference?

[El Guapo 8]

Right or wrong, the US military is largely viewed as a Christian force.

What? Who views it as this?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

What? Who views it as this?

A lot of the countries with brown people who pray to Mecca view it that way. Many people in those countries view the actions of the US in the Middle East as a New Crusades against Islamic countries. They're wrong of course it was about W wanting to go after somebody who tried to kill his Father and about oil.

[mrdannyg 274]

What? Who views it as this?

I have no evidence for that, nor an interest in trying to prove it, since it wasn't really relevant to any points I was making. It's worded way too strongly anyway - I only meant to say that the US government is motivated by Christians/Christianity. That would effect the military, but I did not mean to indicate the military was any special case.

[ShakeZuma 585]

The question asks whether a violent act with non-military targets is justified as an act of defence.

I understand the need to reword the question, but I think you're rewording it incorrectly. to put it in a more general sense, I think it should ask "whether a violent act in defense of your group, directed at targets not directly responsible for the original threat, is justified." the point being is that the suicide bombing isn't just bad because it's killing civilians, but it's bad because it's killing people that have next to nothing to do with the stated "threat."I don't really feel like getting into this argument though, just wanted to point that out. I personally think brv is way underestimating the level of crazy available in most american christians.

[vbnautilus 48]

http://people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-...-for-extremism/According to this 2009 Pew Report, there are 2,454,000 Muslims living in America. If this article is correct and 8% of American Muslims justify suicide bombings and other forms of violence, that comes out to 196,320 Muslims in America that think that suicide bombings are a pretty good idea.

Whats really scary in this poll is that 68% of muslims in palestine answer sometimes or often to this question.Living in America can mitigate some of the crazier aspects of Islam.

[mrdannyg 274]

I understand the need to reword the question, but I think you're rewording it incorrectly. to put it in a more general sense, I think it should ask "whether a violent act in defense of your group, directed at targets not directly responsible for the original threat, is justified." the point being is that the suicide bombing isn't just bad because it's killing civilians, but it's bad because it's killing people that have next to nothing to do with the stated "threat."I don't really feel like getting into this argument though, just wanted to point that out. I personally think brv is way underestimating the level of crazy available in most american christians.

That's a solid rewording. And given the lack of outcry at the bombing of non-military targets by the US, (really? No one has asked me for a reference on this yet? Alright.) I think many Americans answering this in the negative would be hypocritical.

[All_In 0]

From the article:So Libya, who turned over large stockpiles of WMDs and stopped their nuclear program...were viewed by CIA and MI6 as a country that would help hunt and kill terrorist?What's the problem then?Good use of tax dollars by a government that doesn't do that often enough if you ask me.But I do love that nobody cares who this guy Abdel Hakim Belhadj is that is reporting about the evil CIA handing him over to Libya.I wonder if the google thing will work?Oh wow, it does:Here's the headlines to save the TONS of effort to find out the source for your story All_InWhat a surprise, he was a personal friend of Osama Bin Laden, killed American soldiers in Afghanistan and was a member of Al Qaeda.No wonder you liked him All_In, seems like a person you would idolize.Abdel Hakim Belhadj aka Abu Abdullah Assadaq aka Abdel-Hakim al Hasidi aka Abdel Hakim al-Hasadi aka Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, identified here as an al Qaeda terrorist commander in the posting “Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen” of April 3, 2011

WOW, u COMPLETELY missed what this story was about. no wonder u love palin, u r an idiot.not hunt down terrorists, hunt down dissidents (right in the article brainiac).no one knows who he is? oh, just 'The current military commander for Tripoli of Libya’s provisional government...' again right in the article AND i posted the quote.he's associated with al qaeda? so gaddaffi was right when he said the 'rebels' were al qaeda.there are more logical inaccuracies i could mention, but u r an idiot, and most things more complicated than bubblegum wrappers go completely over your head.

[All_In 0]

That's a solid rewording. And given the lack of outcry at the bombing of non-military targets by the US, (really? No one has asked me for a reference on this yet? Alright.) I think many Americans answering this in the negative would be hypocritical.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174954/tom...edding_crashers

[Balloon guy 158]

WOW, u COMPLETELY missed what this story was about. no wonder u love palin, u r an idiot.not hunt down terrorists, hunt down dissidents (right in the article brainiac).no one knows who he is? oh, just 'The current military commander for Tripoli of Libya’s provisional government...' again right in the article AND i posted the quote.he's associated with al qaeda? so gaddaffi was right when he said the 'rebels' were al qaeda.there are more logical inaccuracies i could mention, but u r an idiot, and most things more complicated than bubblegum wrappers go completely over your head.

Leaving for a few weeks doesn't seem to help you understand simple factsMaybe a few months will help?

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174954/tom...edding_crashers

Don't click this link. BEHEADING VIDEO!

[All_In 0]

'US soldiers started to shoot us, one by one'http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/2...ymccarthy/print

[AmScray 355]

And given the lack of outcry at the bombing of non-military targets by the US, (really? No one has asked me for a reference on this yet?

It's hard to identify 'military targets' in wars like this.We should get the hell out of there and leave those stupid monkeys to live in peace, but I think the apathy towards what happens over there has more to do with the US being the Alpha in that fight and our having to live up to the nature of those types of wars and all associated consequences. Everyone else enjoys the luxury of being the sideline critic.Besides. You're a Canadian and a Jew. The only way for the world to care any less about your opinion is if you turned black and shrunk into a midget.