[GandalfTheGrey]

A recent poll was conducted in the US to guage the level of support for suicide bombing. Respondents were asked whether they thought suicide bombing was "often" justified, "sometimes" justfied, or "rarely justified". Overall, 78% of respondents said that suicide bombing can never be justified.
Within that 13% there as some 26% of younger muslims (18-30) who said that suicide bombing can be justified either often (2%), sometimes (13%), or rarely (11%).

How were these results portrayed in the media? Here is a sample of headlines I found:

Poll finds some U.S. Muslim support for suicide attacks

A quarter of young US Muslims support suicide bombings: Poll

TIME BOMBS IN OUR MIDST 26% OF YOUNG U.S. MUSLIMS BACK KILLINGS

Interestingly, in all the samples the emphasis was on the fact that a small percentage of muslims supported suicide bombing. Not one article said "Overwhelming majority of US muslims reject suicide bombing" or something to that effect.

Is this a fair way to portray the results of the survey? Lets take a reality check and consider more deeply exactly what these results mean. Overall we have 80% of muslims rejecting suicide bombing out of hand. No ifs or buts, suicide bombing is unacceptable period. Thats 80% - an overwhelming majority. Next we have 26% of 18-30 year old muslims believe suicide bombing is acceptable to some degree. We could, as the Peninsula Qatar did, take this at face value and declare that 26% of US muslims support suicide bombing period. Of course this is not the full story. If we break it down, the exact results were that 2% support it "often", 13% support it "sometimes" and 11% support it "rarely". With this knowledge, should we be surprised? So of this 24%, in actuality only 2% support it with any degree of conviction. What about the other 24%? Of all the articles I found, the only one with any semblance of balance was the fromGuardian which went to the trouble of including some context:

``It is a hair-raising number,'' said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation - a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

So is it unfair to assume that when some muslims say that "sometimes" or "rarely" it is acceptable to use suicide bombing (lets discard the 2% fringe element present in any given population), they are talking in the context of occupation and oppression? It would appear that to the New York Post, the answer to this would be "yes". Discarding reason and context, the nypost instead resorts to alarmist language, expressed most vividly in the heading "Time Bomb in our Midst". The article does not hold back, declarding that the survey results might be

...revealing possible radicalization of homegrown American Muslim youth

Thankfully most articles on the topic are not as shrill and crude as this one, but it is disturbing that they all look at the results from the one angle. However the interpretation could be turned on its head and give a positive reflection on US muslims. There was after all 80% of muslims who unconditionally rejected suicide bombings.

[Dan]

Is this a fair way to portray the results of the survey?

Yes, it is.

One thing I should note first, is that the numbers in the polls are likely less than people's actual feelings would make them due to the subject matter. Muslims will be likely to be hesitent to say they support terrorism in the US, even in an anonymous questionaire.

Although, I think they should have removed the rarely category from their report, but that still leaves 15% of American Muslims who believe that there are regular times when purposely targetting civilians and killing them (and oneself) is acceptable.

It would be like asking teenagers if they thought school shootings were acceptable, and 15% said that sometimes or often they were.It would be something to worry about even if the number is relatively low.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation - a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

Or Iraq. Hmmm. Wonder who's occupying there?

So that does not really help your case much, as attacking America would be what would be feared by those Americans reading the articles.

There was after all 80% of muslims who unconditionally rejected suicide bombings.

Honestly, when it's put that way it's even more disturbing.

Two (somewhat contradictory) reasons:

1) I get the sense that a lot of them lied. It's never justified. Even I would say there would be some rare times when I would think it would be justified. So by saying never rather than rarely, I would automatically go to the thinking that would fall under the category of "thou does protest too much". Making me think that a fair number fo them were lying for one reason or another. Which would kind of worry me.

2) That highlights almost as much that something that should be condemned is accepted by only 80% of the population. The same number as the number fo dentists who reccommend Crest. It's not high enough.

[QatzelOk]

Overall we have 80% of muslims rejecting suicide bombing out of hand.

Only 56 percent of Americans think current U.S.-coalition efforts as going well, according to a new CNN/USA Today Gallup poll.

So while 80% of Moslems reject international violence "out of hand," a majority of Americans can be lead to support industrial death on an entire nation. A majority of the American public still supported the killing of Iraqis months after it was clear that the reasons for the war were invented.

Who are the barbarians in our midst?

Source

[NYYS]

This is Qatz

Qatz, you find me a link that shows how many Americans support the "killing of Iraqis" and then you have a point. And no, I don't mean how many Americans support a war in Iraq, or how many think the war is going well, or how many American drive cars.

You, as usual, have totally misinterpreted and ignored obvious facts. 80% of Muslims do not support the deliberate killing of civilians through suicide bombings. That is what that poll asked. There is no comparable poll for the US, since here, in a modern, western culture, it goes without saying that deliberately killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is never ok.

[Abood]

Wow. Thanx Gandalf, that's really interesting. And also thanx for actually making an OP that's backed with evidence, rather than just assumptions. I truly respect that.

I'm honestly not shocked. Nothing new here. Although it's different when you have evidence. And I've always known that The Guardian is one of the most balanced newspapers. One of my favourite.

I googled "poll muslims suicide", and even though all the articles imply that most Muslims oppose suicide attacks, only three out of the ten actually has a title that says that.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=po ... tnG=Search

[QatzelOk]

YankSux, while I realise many Americans - perhaps a majority - don't realise that the wars on other countries they support don't kill people, this ignorance actually helps them to kill more people.

The Arab public who were asked about suicide bombing probably realises that blowing up a car in a public place can kill innocent people.

That Americans may have not come to the same conclusion about airplanes dropping billions of tons of explosives in cities, is a tragedy in two parts. First, it means Americans routinely support the killing of innocent people. And secondly, it means that changing this will involve not just international action on a massive scale, but also intense re-education of the stupid, murderous accidental tyrants that have been created by media and mythology.

[GandalfTheGrey]

First of all, it is prudent to be clear on the exact wording of the poll 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?"

Dan:

that still leaves 15% of American Muslims who believe that there are regular times when purposely targetting civilians and killing them (and oneself) is acceptable.

Firstly, it was not "regular[ly]", it was "sometimes" which is very different. Furthermore, the word "sometimes" can easily be interpreted as something equivalent to "not on a regular basis" or "only in exceptional circumstances" Secondly, it is not 15% of American muslims who said that, it was 15% of 18-30 year old American muslims.

This is nothing like asking about school shootings. Suicide bombings are widely perceived by both muslims and non-muslims alike to be within the realm of occupations and war zones - especially Israel. School shootings are not. As the person interviewed by the Guardian said:

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation - a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

Or Iraq. Hmmm. Wonder who's occupying there?
So that does not really help your case much, as attacking America would be what would be feared by those Americans reading the articles.

In this case, it ultimately comes down to an issue of resistance to occupation, which any sane person would agree is an acceptable practice. Especially in view of the fact that the wording of the poll question referred to "defending islam". I don't expect Americans like the idea of being blown up by a homicidal maniac, but there is no reason why these sorts of findings should generate mass hysteria since:

1. 98% of American muslims either reject suicide bombing completely, or at the very worst believe it is acceptable only "sometimes" (not regularly).

2. The wording of the question heavily emphasised suicide bombing within the context of self defence

3. Suicide bombing - unfortunately - is the most familiar association western audiences have of islamic resistance to oppression. So it is not surprising for some muslims to understand (legitimate) resistance in these terms.

Even I would say there would be some rare times when I would think it would be justified. So by saying never rather than rarely, I would automatically go to the thinking that would fall under the category of "thou does protest too much". Making me think that a fair number fo them were lying for one reason or another. Which would kind of worry me.

So whats your point? Are you suggesting this is part of a conspiracy? Are they planning a jihad from within, and they want to sow the seeds of complacency to create an opportunity to strike? Thats hysterical. If these people really were "protesting too much", then all that says to me is that they are eager to not "rock the boat" - which is understandable for a population which is under heavy scrutiny and suspicion. It just means they want to live in peace and not cause any trouble. Sure, a lot more of them might really believe that suicide bombing might be acceptable in some situations, but its perfectly understandable they don't want to align themselves with the "dark side" - even with an anonymous survey.

So while 80% of Moslems reject international violence "out of hand," a majority of Americans can be lead to support industrial death on an entire nation.

It is really not difficult to see the hypocricy of those who would shriek at these results. It would not be difficult at all to see how a morally equivalent poll on a western non-muslim population would produce similar results.

[GandalfTheGrey]

double post

[GandalfTheGrey]

double post

[Kylie]

This is interesting, Gandalf. I also wonder if you replace a couple of words in that survey, meaning Islam to freedom, would you get different answers?

[KurtFF8]

Actually I posted an article that had the title Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings

[KurtFF8]

It would be like asking teenagers if they thought school shootings were acceptable, and 15% said that sometimes or often they were.It would be something to worry about even if the number is relatively low.

Not really, as school shootings are just murderous rampages with no real goal or aim in mind. Whereas suicide bombings are usually associated with a political or religious (although an extreme and misguided version of such aims) goal.

Not really the same thing, although it of course would be disturbing to see such results, and these results aren't comforting. That said, a clear majority reject the tactic.

[Dan]

Suicide bombings are widely perceived by both muslims and non-muslims alike to be within the realm of occupations and war zones - especially Israel.

I don't think so. Suicide bombings have been happening in Europe and America, even before they went into Iraq.

If we go back to the question:

"Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified or never justified?"

It has little to do with occupation and everything to do with defending their religion, which while it may include fighting occupiers foes much farther tahn that.

This is nothing like asking about school shootings. Suicide bombings are widely perceived by both muslims and non-muslims alike to be within the realm of occupations and war zones - especially Israel. School shootings are not. As the person interviewed by the Guardian said:

You are correct, the school shootings was a bad example. It would be more akin to measuring the number of Americans who support bombing abortion clinics. Both were in the realms of defending religious beleifs.

In this case, it ultimately comes down to an issue of resistance to occupation, which any sane person would agree is an acceptable practice. Especially in view of the fact that the wording of the poll question referred to "defending islam". I don't expect Americans like the idea of being blown up by a homicidal maniac, but there is no reason why these sorts of findings should generate mass hysteria since:

You are reading too much into it I think. There is a big difference between defending Islam and defending from occupiers.

2. The wording of the question heavily emphasised suicide bombing within the context of self defence

Not self-defence, but the defence of Islam, which can mean a lot more than self-defence. I'm sure if we could ask Daniel Pearl or Theo van Gogh, they would agree with me.

3. Suicide bombing - unfortunately - is the most familiar association western audiences have of islamic resistance to oppression. So it is not surprising for some muslims to understand (legitimate) resistance in these terms.

That and the WTC, the USS Cole, and a few embassy bombings, none of which had to do with fighting occupiers.

In sum, I think you are putting too much on the words of one sympathetic quote. Suicide bombing to "defend Islam" ranges far beyond "defending from occupiers", especially considering that those polled are not being occupied by anyone.

I could accept your argument if this poll was done in Palestine, Chechnya, or Iraq, but there is nobody occupying Muslims in America.

The most well-known American suicide bombing is the WTC which had absolutely nothing to do with defending from occupiers and everything to do with Islamic extremism.
Not really, as school shootings are just murderous rampages with no real goal or aim in mind. Whereas suicide bombings are usually associated with a political or religious (although an extreme and misguided version of such aims) goal.

You're correct, it was a bad comparison. It would be more akin to asking Americans how many of them supporte abortion clinic bombings.