New at Reason

Cathy Young parses the polls and explores what we know about the minds of American Muslims.

Comments

Grotius | May 29, 2007, 12:13pm | #

Greenwald tries to counterbalance this with a reminder that many white, Christian Americans hold some reprehensible attitudes as well—for instance, 12 percent say they would refuse to vote for a qualified presidential candidate if he was black.

A more on point question to ask is how many "X-religion" Americans condone the killing of "abortionists" or who approve of the imprisonment of homosexuals for being homosexuals.

thoreau | May 29, 2007, 12:14pm | #

A few things:

1) Cathy, it's not terribly fair to put Greenwald's reasoned, researched commentary "on the other hand" compared to Malkin et. al. Also, IIRC, Greenwald dug up some pretty disturbing numbers on what the American public thinks about civilian casualties. Polls of Americans showed more acceptance of civilian casualties than polls taken in a variety of Muslim countries.

2) It isn't terribly surprising to me that the young breathe more fire than the old.

3) I want to know how many of those "rarely" responses come from people who can't answer a question with "never" because they think "Well, I'd like to say 'never', but what if..." We've all had those conversations in college dorms late at night where somebody stacks enough "But what if?" questions onto something and gets you to give an answer that you wouldn't otherwise give. (This might also explain some of the numbers for the young.)

4) I want to know how many of those "don't know/declined to respond" answers were actually "declined to respond", and how many of those "declined to respond" answers were actually "WTF? That's a pretty insulting question!" responses.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 29, 2007, 12:31pm | #

I keep hearing, in certain circles, the question "Where are all the muslims speaking out against terrorists?" Such people have not been looking for them - they are out there. You can find many of them here: http://www.freemuslims.org/

John | May 29, 2007, 12:38pm | #

"Polls of Americans showed more acceptance of civilian casualties than polls taken in a variety of Muslim countries."

Accpetance of civilian casualties is different than advocating suicide bombing. Further, there is a diference both eithicly and legally between incidentily killing civilians in a legitimate military strick and specifically targeting and terrorizing civilians in a suicide bombing. It is a distinction the American public gets and apparently Greenwald doesn't. Yes, it is perfectly fair to lump Greenwald in with Malkin. There was nothing well thought out or reasoned about his collumn.

John | May 29, 2007, 12:42pm | #

You really have to know what the respondents in these polls thing of as "defense of Islam" to understand what they mean. I can see it being much worse than portrayed or not as bad depending on what that means.

The bigger issue is that converted Muslims are more radical than immigrant ones. It is not surprising. Ussually converts are a lot more dangerous than someone who grew up in the tradition. The real danger to the U.S. is that Islam becomes a way for the criminal element to stick it in the eye of society and we end up with a large number of radical native converts. This is why the radicalization of Islam in prisons should be such a concern. Truthfully, probably more of a concern than the typcial Pakistani immigrant.

Alan Vanneman | May 29, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Millions of Americans supported a terrorist organization for decades: the Irish Republican Army. Ronald Reagan refused to crack down on American support for the IRA (cash and arms, smuggled out of New York) even when the IRA came close to assassinating Margaret Thatcher.

The U.S. has frequently killed innocent civilians during the current "War on Terror" for reasons of "military necessity." How many people have been murdered by U.S. Muslims?

joe | May 29, 2007, 12:47pm | #

John,

Perhaps THIS link to Greenwald could clear up some of your confusion - your confusion, not Greenwald's confusion - about the deliberate targetting of civilians vs. collateral damage.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/25/torture_violence/index.html

Some highlights:

"Some people think that bombings and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this type of violence is never justified. Do you personally think that such attacks are...justified?"

Among Iranians, 11% reported that such attacks are often or sometimes justified.

Among Americans, the figure was 24%.

Among Iranians, 85% replied that such attacks were rarely or never justified.

Americans? 73%.

Breaking that down, 80% of Iranians said that deliberately targetting civilians is never justified, while a pathetic 46% of Americans answered that way.

More right there in the link.

Shelby | May 29, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Is there a more credible spokesman for Greenwald's viewpoint than Greenwald himself? (or himselves?) He may be right (as may Malkin in any given instance), but his history of deception and prevarication makes me skeptical.

MP | May 29, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Breaking that down, 80% of Iranians said that deliberately targetting civilians is never justified, while a pathetic 46% of Americans answered that way.

"Never" is the wrong word to analyze, and it's unsurprising to see a figure of 46% next to never. Absolutes are not a good guide point. Was Hiroshima justified?

Of course, that presupposes that the American population is better educated about history than the Iranian population, which is a specious argument.

Ashley | May 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Seems like context free bad analysis of bad statistics. Don't something like 60% of white Christian Americans think preemptive violence to hypothetically defend their country (which something like 50% feel is all but one in the same with their faith) is justified. Human beings can be violent.

Also note that McVeigh's perpetrator:victim ratio was higher than that of the 9/11 crew. I'm much more worried about the several hundred thousand new veterans and war heroes coming home with untreated PTSD and new views on the value of life in America than I am about some ethnic teens in Detroit.

Dave W. | May 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Accpetance of civilian casualties is different than advocating suicide bombing. Further, there is a diference both eithicly and legally between incidentily killing civilians in a legitimate military strick and specifically targeting and terrorizing civilians in a suicide bombing.

If you think this, then it would seem to imply that if the suicide bombing gets at least one active duty member of the enemy military (or at least is intended to), then suicide bombing basically becomes as legit as the collateral damage inflicted by the military.

Do you agree?

I myself think that the morality here should be considered more a matter of mil/civ ratios than "good" intentions.

tarran | May 29, 2007, 1:16pm | #

U.S. television tends to be quite sanitized an light on gore. I know arab networks tend to be much more explicit.

It's quite possible that the responses were influenced by Americans tending to consider civilian casualties clinically while Middle Easterners having more visceral reactions.

BTW, the United States does practice terrorism against civilians. They don't like to call it that, they prefer "targetting critical regime suporters" and "shock and awe". The U.S. has taken family members hostage while looking for insurgents. The confinement of all fighting-age males, innocent or not, in Fallujah, followed by the razing of the city was clearly motivated by a desire on the part of the Bush administration to strike fear into the hearts of the wider population.

One of Reagan's senior aides, some General, made a speech a few years ago where he called the "War on Terrorism" as silly as a "War on Amphibious Landings". One of his comments was that he and his team tried to come up with a definition of terrorism, but could not come up with one that excluded the United States, and gave it up as being bad for PR.

Dave W. | May 29, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Also note that McVeigh's perpetrator:victim ratio was higher than that of the 9/11 crew

That assumes he acted alone. I don't think he did.

Dave W. | May 29, 2007, 1:20pm | #

U.S. television tends to be quite sanitized an light on gore.

Libertarian mags and internet mags, too.

joe | May 29, 2007, 1:21pm | #

MP,

Fine, using the term "never" demonstrates a certain lack of precision in their ethical thought.

Still, the difference is striking, and certainly provides a window into genuine differences in opinion.

Grotius | May 29, 2007, 1:23pm | #

tarran,

Of course one could argue that perhaps some middle eastern TV outlets play up the gore. Anyway, for both the U.S. and Iran I'd be interested to know just how many of the respondents understood the question. In the very limited experience I have with polling I've found that even questions on the surface seem clear perplex large swaths of the respondents.

Tbone | May 29, 2007, 1:24pm | #

I reject this study outright, not because the numbers may be right or may be wrong, but because it give Shameus Hannity one more reason to say "they don't understand the nature of the threat we're fighting".

The lack of domestic suicide bombings or other attacks also makes me question this data. Even if we assumed that our internal security apparatus is ultra-efficient, the numbers cited mean that several plots should have already been successful.

Grotius | May 29, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Tbone,

Well, there is a difference between hypothetically arguing that X is alright and going out and doing it.

Maybe lots of Americans don't have a problem with intentionally bombing civilians. As a rule thought it seems that this something we've largely avoided since the wars in SE Asia.*

*Of course it could be argued that even there we weren't intentionally bombing civilians, just getting at the Khmer Rouge (or whoever) hiding amongst the civilians.

John | May 29, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Joe,

The post above by MP explained it pretty well. What Americans are saying is different than advocating suicide bombing. I am not going to beat my head on this wall anyway. You have long since shown that you are incapable of critizing any one you agree with. It doesn't Greenwald says, you will never criticize him because he on your side. What that is.

Dave W.

If you are targeting military targets and the military value of the strike outweighs the civilian causualities. As far as your suicide bomber, he would have to be wearing a uniform and not pretending to be a civilian in order for it to be a lawful strike. The problem with suicide bombings is not that only that it targets civilians but also that doing so ussually involved not wearing a uniform and pretending to be a civilian. I seriously doubt any of the respondents to this poll would expect the suicide bomber to identify himself and wear a uniform.

That is what Greenwald and Joe don't get. It not just the targeting of civilians. It is the blending in with civilians and using civilians as shields. A suicide bomb in that sense is much worse than say bombing a city with a bomber. At least the military bomber is identifying himself and giving the host nation a chance to defend itself. The suicide bomber by blending in with civilians is giving the target no choice but to target innocent civilians in order to defend himself. It is this kind of thing that the poll respondents were advocating, which is far worse than saying that it is sometimes okay to bomb civilians in a war.

John | May 29, 2007, 1:59pm | #

Tbone,

That is why the poll doesn't mean a lot. Just because they support it doesn't mean they will do it. The problem only arises if you get a small number of people who are willing to do it who can hide in a large number of supporters. What this poll really means is that if there ever are a significant number of suicide bombers in the country, we probably can't depend on a decent percentage of the Muslim population to be any help in stopping them.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:00pm | #

John,

"What Americans are saying is different than advocating suicide bombing."

Yes, the Americans who support deliberately targetting civilians don't say that the attackers should die as well. Whoopie.

"I am not going to beat my head on this wall anyway." Yes, that's probably what's best for you. Damn Greenwald and his FACTS.

John | May 29, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Yes,

Thank you for confirming my worst expectations of you. I will try to use small words this time so you get it. The problem with suicide bombing is more than just that it targets civilians. It is that it's perpetraitors blend into the civilian population. There is a reason why it is illegal to fight without a uniform. To do so gives your opponent no choice but to targe civilians.

Is that simple enough for you? You are not really dumb, you are just narrowminded and subbord and refuse to see any flaw in any opinion espoused by you or someone you disagree with.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:05pm | #

John,

Nothing in the Greenwald link I provided mentions suicide bombing.

Both Americans and people from those Muslim nations are asked exactly the same question - about attacking civilians.

No, the distinction is not about the difference between suicide bombings and aerial bombings.

"You're just saying that because he agrees with you" is a reasonable response to someone who adopts a position that's contrary to the factual data.

John, you're just disagreeing with Greenwald because you don't like his politics, and empirical evidence be damned.

John | May 29, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Joe,

Read the rest of the post to DaveW. There is more to it than just targeting civilians. This is the same old moral equivilence falacy people used in the cold war. Bombing civilians, while illegal and wrong, is not the same as suicide bombing.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Ha ha, all that yammering about my intelligence and bias, and all you did is confirm that you never bothered to consult that data - the data that disproves your pet theory about the respondants answering two different questions.

You're entitled to your own opinion, John, but not your own facts.

Scary, liberal facts.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:09pm | #

"There is more to it than just targeting civilians."

No, the data I linked to was about targetting civilians.

And, once again, Americans were much more likely to approve of targetting civilians than the residents of four Muslim countries.

John | May 29, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Greenwald wasn't slamming on the polls of Iranians. Yes, Greenwald did compare apples to apples when he compared the polls of Iranians, assuming they are valid, to polls of Americans relating to targeting of civilians. But, neither of those polls have anything to do with this one. This one is about suicide bombing not targeting of civilians. Had Greenwald never commented on this poll, you would have a point. But he did. He used the Iranian and American poll numbers to discredit this one. That is bullshit. This poll was about suicide bombing.

John | May 29, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Greenwald is no better than Malkin. 25% of Muslim respondents say they would support suicide bombing in some cases and Greenwald's retort is only that Americans support bombing civilians more than Iranians. Big fucking deal. First, one has nothing to do with the other. Is Greenwald seriously argueing that suicide bombings are okay becuase Americans supported Hiroshima? I doubt it. Greenwald just dodges the question. Rather than deal wiht the issue by looking at the poll, he does the typical "Americans are just as bad, how dare you point out anyone else's flaws" agrument. The whole piece is pathetic.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:17pm | #

"He used the Iranian and American poll numbers to discredit this one."

No, he used them to discredit the inferences some people have drawn from ths poll. As he writes,

"As indicated earlier this week, the meaning and inferences which one can draw from all of this are certainly debatable. But whatever else might be true, it renders rather bizarre the intense reaction -- not just in pro-war, neoconservative circles, but from our shocked-and-appalled media figures as well -- to the discovery that a very small percentage of American Muslims can envision circumstances in which suicide bombs in defense of their religion might be justified."

Greenwald doesn't claim the poll of American Muslims is wrong, just that people using it to conclude that American Muslims are uniquely violent and frightening are overreaching.

joe | May 29, 2007, 2:18pm | #

"Is Greenwald seriously argueing that suicide bombings are okay becuase Americans supported Hiroshima?"

No, he's not. Why don't you read what he wrote, so you don't need to ask what he's arguing?

Lamar | May 29, 2007, 4:05pm | #

"Is Greenwald seriously argueing that suicide bombings are okay becuase Americans supported Hiroshima?"

Change "Hiroshima" for "Dresden" and your sentence falls apart. While many people like to blame the GOP, the sad truth is that Americans as a whole are a low-class, bloodthirsty lot.

Grotius | May 29, 2007, 4:30pm | #

I profess to have no knowledge of Greenwald, only having heard of the fellow today.

anon | May 29, 2007, 6:34pm | #

John,

Was dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima considered targetting civilians or not? If your military actions is guranteed to kill far more civilians than soldiers, is it not targetting civilians.

Your logic seems that if we do it, it is good. If they do it, it is evil.

anon | May 29, 2007, 6:37pm | #

Bombing civilians, while illegal and wrong, is not the same as suicide bombing.

I doubt it makes a difference to the targetted dead civilian or his family.

matthew hogan | May 29, 2007, 8:34pm | #

"A suicide bomb in that sense is much worse than say bombing a city with a bomber. At least the military bomber is identifying himself and giving the host nation a chance to defend itself. The suicide bomber by blending in with civilians is giving the target no choice but to target innocent civilians in order to defend himself."

And that's why the Blitz of London was so much better than the subway suicide bombings.

Bleepless | May 29, 2007, 10:36pm | #

Young is being irrational in stating that terrorism on behalf of Palestinians leaves us free. Find one Islamist, one Muslim supporter of terrorism, who draws a basic distinction between Israel and the USA. Just one.

Mark B. | May 29, 2007, 10:37pm | #

If you had taken a poll of the Japanese immigrant community in the US (including my grandparents) 75 years ago, you probably would have found that the vast majority of them were deeply attached to Japan, kept pictures of the Emperor in their homes, and thought that the Japanese government was entirely justified in its actions in Manchuria and China. If you had polled their children 10 years later, you would have found that most of them were loyal to the US and thought Japan was misguided at best and murderously fanatical at worst. If you polled their grandchildren 30 years later, you would have found that most of them thought of Japan as an abstraction, irrelevant to their everyday lives.

First-generation immigrants are always deeply imbued with the culture and politics of their homelands; it doesn't mean that they are ready to start exercising those politics in their new homes. Talk to the Muslim immigrants' children 15 years from now; I'll bet you'll find that they look upon the Middle East as a place where a bunch of crazies are running around blowing things up over matters that don't concern them (the children) one iota.

False Prophet | May 29, 2007, 11:55pm | #

Isn't the real difference between suicide bombing and aerial bombing a matter of access and opportunity? If Hamas had B-52s and 500-lb. smart bombs, don't you think they'd be carpet bombing Tel Aviv on a daily basis?

I don't like to jump on the anti-American bandwagon, but I think the American view of warfare is a telling sign of parochialism. Just because the USA can afford to lob millions of dollars of (mostly) accurately-targeted bombs, shells and missiles at its foes at minimal risk to its own personnel, doesn't mean it's the only acceptable form of warfare. If the rest of the world could afford to fight war the American way, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Because they can't, they're forced to use less accurate and more risky methods.

Ted Bell | May 30, 2007, 2:36am | #

False sayz:
"Isn't the real difference between suicide bombing and aerial bombing a matter of access and opportunity? If Hamas had B-52s and 500-lb. smart bombs, don't you think they'd be carpet bombing Tel Aviv on a daily basis?"

It's a false premise. Arab society cannot muster up and construct aeroplanes or smart bombs. If they had the ability to construct such devises, they would not be fanatical nut-bags. Maybe they would also stop making their women wear body bags in ungodly heat and beat them to death after they are gang-raped.

But hey, other than that, they are just another 15-years away from Beaver Cleaver land.

Stephen W. Browne | May 30, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Many years ago I read one of the more obscure military classics on guerilla warfare by the Greek Cypriot General Georges Grivas.

If memory serves, he estimated that a successful guerilla war can be mounted with a population wherein about 2% are active fighters, another 20-30% active supporters (i.e. willing to supply food, funds and lying to the police) and that with this, the rest could be terrorized into silence and passive support.

Timon19 | May 30, 2007, 10:33pm | #

Hey Ted?

Yeah, the mostly demeaning requirement (in certain Muslim countries, but certainly not all) of women being covered head to toe has naught to do with heat. Most forms of dress over there evolved over centuries mainly for their ability to deal with the heat. Some Bedouins actually wear black when herding, as it further promotes airflow underneath (convection).

Now that the rich Muslim countries can air-condition their entire environment to bone-chilling levels, it's something of an anachronism. It no longer serves the comfort purpose and only the religious one. Fortunately, in the more affluent, modern Muslim countries, the abaya, et. al. are pretty much optional.

rickbee | May 31, 2007, 11:27am | #

Torture? Is "loud music" & bikini'd beauties" among the worst?
Polls are unlikely to be able to divulge the mindset of the pollee. I read very carefully & sometimes my traditional use of English puts me in disagreement with the poll taker's organization,of which I am in much agreement as a rule.

Toady | May 31, 2007, 11:54am | #

Fortunately, in the more affluent, modern Muslim countries, the abaya, et. al. are pretty much optional.

It is mostly in those affluent oil countries where the abaya et all ... is not.

John David Galt | May 31, 2007, 2:42pm | #

Yes, most American Muslims are tolerant and at least say they want to live in a society with freedom of religion just like the rest of us. And yes, Christian and Jewish scripture, like Muslim scripture, advocates forced conversion (see for instance the Mosaic laws in Exodus).

But there is a major difference: the senior mullahs who are recognized as authorities by all the major branches of Islam do not support pluralism -- they support conversion by force.

It seems to me that Islam is overdue for, and is starting to undergo, its own "Protestant Reformation" in which the great mass of believers (at least in the West) would switch allegiance to new "elders" who accept pluralism. I would like to see America (as a community of volunteers, not as a government) foster this change and shelter the people who are working to make it happen.