Friday, April 16, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home »

Gallup Poll: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians

5 August 2011 25 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Gallup Poll: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians

A very important poll from Gallup was resulted recently.  I will comment in detail later on when I pick up where I left off in the Understanding Jihad Series (soon, I promise).

For the record, I purposefully worded the title of my post in a somewhat provocative way; as has been my style in the Series, I tend to show how we can turn the tables on anti-Muslim Jews (i.e. Pamela Geller) and Christians (i.e. Robert Spencer)–as well as anti-Muslim ex-Muslim atheists/agnostics (i.e. Faith Freedom International) who claim that Islam and Muslims are more violent than Judaism and Christianity.  These anti-Muslim elements would have worded the title this way, had it been the other way around.

Perhaps a more sensitive and appropriate way to word the title–had I not been trying to make a point–would be to say “Muslims Least Likely to Condone Targeting and Killing Civilians.”

Check out the results of the poll here and here.  Here are the more pertinent results in bar graph form:


*  *  *  *  *

The comic above is absolutely wonderful and really depicts the utter hypocrisy of the United States and Israel.  This hypocrisy is born out in the poll results, which show that many (a majority of?) Americans are opposed to small, weak, and largely irrelevant groups like Al-Qaeda killing civilians but are perfectly fine with the powerful, mighty, and hyper-ultra-mega-super power that is our military targeting and killing civilians on a much larger scale.

Here, it would be appropriate to understand the difference between what I call Professional Terrorism (“state terror”) and Amateur Terrorism (Al-Qaeda style).  Professional Terrorism uses the military-industrial complex to kill tens of thousands of civilians, whereas Amateur Terrorism uses untrained amateurs without the help of state resources to kill a handful of people (or which actually more commonly results in a failed bombing).

In American and Israeli society, Professional Terrorism is acceptable, whereas Amateur Terrorism is absolutely the world’s greatest evil.  Amateur Terrorism provides the justification for Professional Terrorism (this even though it is usually almost always the case that Professional Terrorism started the cycle of violence).  Those who have the capability to carry out Professional Terrorism have absolutely no need to resort to Amateur Terrorism since the former is so much more effective in killing civilians than the latter.  To this effect, Max Blumenthal has published an excellent article (which is worth reading in its entirety) in which he explains why more extremist Jews and Christians don’t need to rely on Anders Behring Breivik’s form of terrorism (Amateur Terrorism):

Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. But the sort of terrorism these US-based rightists incited for was not the style the Norwegian killer would eventually adopt. Instead of Breivik’s renegade free-booting, they preferred the “shock and awe” brand of state terror perfected by Western armies against the brown hordes threatening to impose Sharia law on the people in Peoria. This kind of violence provides a righteous satisfaction so powerful it can be experienced from thousands of miles away.

And so most American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops — and their remote-controlled aerial drones — leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City. Only a select group of able-bodied Islamophobes are willing to suit up in a uniform and rush to the front lines of the clash of civilizations. There, they have discovered that they can mow down Muslim non-combatants without much fear of legal consequences, and that when they return, they will be celebrated as the elite Crusader-warriors of the new Islamophobic right — a few particularly violent figures have been rewarded with seats in Congress. Given the variety of culturally acceptable, officially approved outlets for venting violent anti-Muslim resentment, there is little reason for any American to follow in Breivik’s path of infamy.

Before exploring the online subculture that both shaped and mirrored Breivik’s depravity, it is necessary to define state terror, especially the kind refined by its most prolific practitioners. At the dawn of the “war on terror,” the United States and Israel began cultivating a military doctrine called “asymmetrical warfare.” Pioneered by an Israeli philosophy and “practical ethics” professor named Asa Kasher and the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Lt. Gen. Amos Yadlin, and successfully marketed to the Pentagon, the asymmetrical warfare doctrine did away with traditional counterinsurgency tactics which depended on winning the “hearts and minds” of indigenous populations. Under the new rules, the application of disproportionate force against non-combatants who were supposedly intermingled with the “terrorists” was not only  justified but considered necessary. According to Kasher and Yadlin, eliminating the principle of distinction between enemy combatants and civilians was the most efficient means of deterring attacks from non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah while guarding the lives of Israeli soldiers.

Asymmetrical warfare has been witnessed in theaters of war across the Muslim world, leaving tens of thousands of civilians dead in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip. The strategy was formalized in the Dahiya district of southern Beirut in 2006, when the Israeli military flattened hundreds of civilian structures and homes to supposedly punish Hezbollah for its capturing of two Israeli soldiers.

From the ashes of the Israeli carpet bombing campaign emerged the “Dahiya Doctrine,” a term coined by an Israeli general responsible for directing the war on Lebanon in 2006. “IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot uttered clear words that essentially mean the following,” wrote Israeli journalist Yaron London, who had just interviewed the general. “In the next clash with Hezbollah we won’t bother to hunt for tens of thousands of rocket launchers and we won’t spill our soldiers’ blood in attempts to overtake fortified Hizbullah positions. Rather, we shall destroy Lebanon and won’t be deterred by the protests of the ‘world.’” In a single paragraph, London neatly encapsulated the logic of state terror.

While Israel has sought to insulate itself from the legal ramifications of its attacks on civilian life by deploying elaborate propaganda and intellectual sophistry (witness the country’s frantic campaign to discredit the Goldstone Report), and the United States has casually dismissed allegations of war crimes as any swaggering superpower would (after a US airstrike killed scores of Afghan civilians, former US CENTCOM chief David Petraeus baselessly claimed that Afghan parents had deliberately burned their children alive to increase the death toll), the online Islamophobes who inspired Breivik tacitly accept the reality of Israeli and American state terror. And they like it. Indeed, American Islamophobes derive frightening levels of ecstasy from the violence inflicted by the armed forces against Muslim civilians.

Blumenthal notes that “state terror” and “asymmetric warfare” has been perfected by extremists the mainstream establishment in America and Israel and accepted unquestioningly by fringe elements the vast majority of citizenry.  Killing civilians has become so much a part of the norm and we have internalized it to such a great extent that we don’t even recognize it as inherently wrong any more.  This is clearly reflected in the Gallup poll.

*  *  *  *  *

On the relative irrelevance of Al-Qaeda’s violence, see here where Glenn Greenwald correctly comments on “the puny, broken, absurd state of Al Qaeda.”  As for America being a hyper-ultra-mega-super power that wages so much war on so many different fronts that it may have set a new standard for all of history, check out this article here.  And of course, there’s this from Prof. Stephen Walt showing the great imbalance in civilian deaths between the two sides.

Naturally, terrorism in the minds of most Americans is by definition violence committed by Muslims (see here).

As I stated before, I will include a more in-depth discussion of this poll on some other day.


  1. The propaganda here is mind numbing. Surveys conducted via Muslim American Polls? Ok, go ahead, I have my boots on and my shovel ready.

    “Especially in the south of Marjah, the enemy is fighting from compounds where soldiers can very clearly see women or children on the roof or in a second-floor or third-floor window,” Ghori said. “They are trying to get us to fire on them and kill the civilians.”
    -Gen. Mohiudin Ghori (Brigade commander for Afghan troops in Marjah)

  2. hey@LOVETHEMwhiteMENgod…….you have the wrong site..DEGAGE!!!

  3. My first visit here. I am wondering: am I missing a joke? Is this site for real, or is it like The People’s Cube?

    I think it’s real, in which case I have to say: put down the Kool Aid. Carefully, carefully. Now, sloooowly walk away. Okay! Run! Go find your common sense! It’s got to be here, somewhere!

  4. you know there will always be someone that will say the gallup polls are biased even though they are run by the least biased company…it is also a fact that muslims only make up 4% of terroristic attacks here in the states and yet muslims are blames for all the problems!

  5. sahra,

    you going to yell at helema for bringing up the same stat, we’ve seen a “billion” times? jk it’s only been a half dozen times or so. will you forgive me my usual response?


    yes you are correct on your 4%. well actually if i remeber correctly this website said 6%. perhaps you have newer data? but what is concerning is the effects and the public knowledge of that 4%. here in florida i probably don’t hear about elf terror attacks in oregon. anyways here’s the fbi 1980 to 2005 report.

    non-islamic terrorist deaths 194, injuries 900
    islamic terrorist deaths 2,981 injuries 13,000est hard to be percise on 9/11
    that 4% of terrorism accounts for 93.8% of all deaths and 93.5% of injuries.

    as for the article, i don’t want to be irrelevent. i love the cartoon. i’ve always wondered why hamas lobs these silly missles that do no real damage, and hardly ever kill anyone. looks like the old man has seen it before, no need to run. i guess they are duds mostly? it just gives cover to the israelis to lay waste to the gaza strip and to have a blockade. it’s a strange military strategy and a worst public relations one.

    also the survey makes sense to me. americans understand modern warfare. we fire bombed dresden and tokyo. we also dropped a couple of nukes before the japanesse would surrender. we understand that to save your soldiers lives you destroy the enemy’s war machinery production capabilities. perhaps muslim still think of warfare as being in a feild of battle and hand to hand with longest ranged weapon being an arrow? not much possibility of collateral damage.

  6. how’s this for relevance?

    “On the relative irrelevance of Al-Qaeda’s violence”, so the author thinks 9/11 was irrelevant? is that the word of the day? anyways i couldn’t disagree more.

  7. I will not be shocked if there’s another holocaust in the states… the “peaceful” Christians will target us Muslims… hell I won’t be surprised if some of us Muslims are shot like dogs just like Nazi Germany did to the Jews……

  8. Well if you think the United States is a terrorist nation and that we have embarked on a crusade, then you will love this article. I was just talking about wars of attrition a few days ago. Since WWII and to a lesser extent Korea the United States has moved away from mass killing of people in order to win a conflict. Still many people die but not in near the numbers it actually takes to win a war. When you’re using bombs and the people you are trying to kill are hiding or basing themselves in neighborhoods then civilians will get killed. Personally I am for pulling out of every war zone we are engaged in and letting local peoples sort the problems out. I do not believe in wars with the objective of winning hearts and minds, every time you kill someone you upset a group of people and make an enemy. Hearts and minds are never won.
    I do not like war nor do I like seeing people killed. These limited wars last too long and affect generations of children on both sides. One can claim they are more humane but they are not. The poverty, misery, constant stress takes its toll on the entire population. A war of attrition is brutal, a lot of people are killed, but it is generally over within a short period of time as one side simply collapses. Once its done people can put their lives back together and move on. Our current wars still kill thousands, just a lot more slowly with multiple generations of people being damaged. It just makes me sick.

    So yes I am a Christian, and if asked I guess I would be on the side for allowing the killing of civilians, but not like we’re doing it now; that I do not agree with. Best solution, no war. If war must be made develop a plan to win it within 3-5 years then commit yourself to winning it.

  9. If anyone wants a more detailed survey by GALLUP which show the different agenda’s then please read this –

    Interesting stuff. Especially like the part where American Muslims are well educated and all.

    “anyways here’s the fbi 1980 to 2005 report. ”

    Here’s a more recent one, which shows Islamic terrorism is almost non-existent –

    Amazing how most terrorist acts are commited by Non-Muslims, with the extreme rarity of it being a Muslim, yet the terrorist word seemingly applies more to the Muslim then anyone else.

    The Norway case and this video is a great case of proof –

  10. “My first visit here. I am wondering: am I missing a joke? Is this site for real, or is it like The People’s Cube?”

    This is probably your first time visiting or hearing any truth. So it’s expected to suprise you, since fox-news isn’t really known for mentioning the details.

    I hope you’ve found some enlightenment 🙂

  11. @Chakia It’s a scary thought, and it has happened to minorities in the past. But I believe nothing will come without a consequence, if it did ever get down to persecution, believe me, they will themselves be at a greater loss.

  12. “also the survey makes sense to me. americans understand modern warfare. we fire bombed dresden and tokyo. we also dropped a couple of nukes before the japanesse would surrender. we understand that to save your soldiers lives you destroy the enemy’s war machinery production capabilities. perhaps muslim still think of warfare as being in a feild of battle and hand to hand with longest ranged weapon being an arrow? not much possibility of collateral damage.”

    This is quite funny, I assume your takin knowledge from high school semester. Now that your free from that forced propoganda, I would suggest you look on the internet for some unbiased sources on what really happens during war, especially one that has involved America.

    I would strongly suggest you do some indepth research on the Veitnam war, where 2,000,000 civilians were killed, majority of them elderly, women and children, before that many of them raped, tortured and beaten. Here is just a taster for you –

    “The My Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [tʰɐ̃ːm ʂɐ̌ːt mǐˀ lɐːj]; English pronunciation: /ˌmiːˈlaɪ/ ( listen), also /ˌmiːˈleɪ, ˌmaɪˈlaɪ/,[1] Vietnamese: [mǐˀlɐːj]) was the mass murder of 347–504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, conducted by “Charlie” company, 1st battalion, 20th infantry, 11th infantry brigade, of the Americal Division, United States Army. All of the victims were civilians and most were women, children (including babies), and elderly people. Many of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.[2]”

    Then we have the Japanese civilian bombings. From my understanding this was more of a “revenge” attack.

    Here’s some more information –

    In regards to Islam, there’s certain rules in war. Unfortunatly, it does cripple us sometimes, but somehow in the centuries we’ve still come away with victories.

    This was the rules relayed by Abu Bakr(ra) upon an Islamic war with an enemy –

    “O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well!

    Do no betray or misappropriate any part of the booty; do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. You will come upon people who will bring you dishes with various kinds of foods. If you partake of them, pronounce God’s name over what you eat. You will meet people who have shaved the crown of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Go in Gods name, and may God protect you from sword and pestilence.”

    In today’s time, with nuclear weapons and such, if a Muslim country was to get into a real war, then it would be very difficult for it follow rules, since Non-Muslims would look at it as a sign of “weakness” and use it to try and defeat the Muslims ie. Targetting civilians etc.

    However, we have faith, God has given us victories in the past as long as we have not transgressed.

    Anyways, hope this was informative to you, rather then your usual information from those anti-islamic propoganda websites.


    Criley what do you mean by: You would be on the side for allowing the killing civilians, but not the way we’re doing right now?? I mean what’s the difference of the “method” of killing civilians, isn’t killing civilians, killing civilians.

    More importantly HOW would you have done it, if you were giving the chance to kill unarmed civilians??

    What’s the difference of HOW it’s done by the american military machine when they’re kill civilians.
    I mean shouldn’t we be more upset with the WHY and HOW COME they are killing unarmed civilians in the first place, than with the method they are using to kill the unarmed civilians??

    And are you seriously saying that you will be Okey with, if innocent and unarmed, men, women, children, elderly are killed?? because that’s pretty much what civilians means…

    You also said that you are a christian, just before you wrote the sentence that says, you will be okey with killing unarmed civilians.

    SO i want to ask you on that note…With you been Okey with killing of innocent, unarmed civilians..IS that a christian thing? Did you get that from the bible? Is that what really christianity teach? because i would have bet differently…

  14. Sahra, I did not invent war. War is not something I like or wish on any nation or people. My point was that a war of attrition treats soldiers and civilians as enemys in mass. Therfore they will bomb cities, towns, any target that has military value. Farms produce food, dams produce electricity, factories produce many things, Families provide support for the soldier in the field. All of the above is run by civilians who support the war machine. As a result a lot of people get killed of all ages. Its not pretty and its not good but it is usually short due to the fact that destruction is wide spread and horrific. Conflicts such as these usually last 3 to 5 years before one side or the other surrenders or works out a cease fire. Though the effects are tragic the scope and effects of the war are within a limited time frame and lend itself to healing and rebuilding.

    I believe our current wars try to limit causalities and limit the scope of destruction. The trouble is the limits do not work well and the destruction that takes place limits food, employment, power, medical care, transportation, education, and places a great deal of stress on the population of people. Look at todays comflicts, we are about 10 years into them and there is still no end in sight. The heartache, suffering, fear, and need just go on and on affecting a larger and larger number of people as more and more generations of people are born into and suffer from the conflict. Peoples basic needs are not being met, the years give rise to even more anger and hate and the conflict just continues. After we do withdraw from or end this 10 to 20 year war, how does its peoples get back on their feet when you have 15 generations of people suffering from various stress syndroms, poor education, and the other effects of war. What will normal even be to these people and how will they achieve it?

    Sahra, I am sorry if my comments seem evil or uncaring: I actually do care quite a bit, and maybe you do not agree with me in year 10 lets see what you have to say when were in year 17

  15. perseverance,

    i don’t follow you at all. well i’m sure we did covere ww2 in high school. what “forced propoganda”? we were very much told of massive civilian deaths. like i said we firebombed and nuked entire cities. america kills civilians in massive numbers in wars. how is that propoganda? yes i’ve heard of the My Lai Massacre. (why don’tyou link the wiki pages you quote from so i can read the whole page?) we studied veitnam in high school as well. also heard of No Gun Ri Massacre, but not in high school. you say 2million civilian deaths, ok, looks like the high end of the estimate, and i doubt america is responsible for all of them. you seem to be the propagandist.

    anyways back to the cartoon. unlike others i wouldn’t claim to know what someone else is thinking. but you talk about victories delivered by allah. so why do you think the palestinians haven’t been able to beat the jews? do you think they transgress and do not fight in the way of allah with these rocket attacks?

  16. Here is a poll.

    JERUSALEM, Israel — A new poll among Palestinians indicates there’s overwhelming support for the charter of the terrorist group Hamas — a dangerous element if the Palestinians gain statehood in September.

    The Israel Project found that 80 percent Palestinians support Hamas. The desire to annihilate the Jewish people is one of the main goals of the Hamas organization.

  17. “The Israel Project found that 80 percent Palestinians support Hamas. The desire to annihilate the Jewish people is one of the main goals of the Hamas organization.”

    Why don’t you live in an occupied land, where your mothers and sisters are raped, your beaten to half and deatrh and put in jail. Your children or brothers are beaten and then killed.

    Then tell me you wouldn’t support the only “chance” they have of being free from oppression.

    So much hypocrisy and lack of knowledge.

  18. On the the other hand, according to a Gallup poll 52% of Israelis think it is OK to target and kill civilians.

    What we have then is:

    Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:

    Mormon-Americans 64%
    Christian-Americans 58%
    Jewish-Americans 52%
    Israeli Jews 52%
    Palestinians* 51%
    No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%
    Nigerians* 43%
    Lebanese* 38%
    Spanish Muslims 31%
    Muslim-Americans 21%
    German Muslims 17%
    French Muslims 16%
    British Muslims 16%
    Egyptians* 15%
    Indonesians* 13%
    Jordanians* 12%
    Pakistanis* 5%
    Turks* 4%

    *refers to Muslims only

  19. And yet they throw unguided missles into Israelie cities and machine gun school busses. Not enough can be said for an active minority.

  20. @Criley..

    I’m sorry and i dont know were your compassion is, but nothing, absolutely nothing what so ever can justifie the killing of unarmed civilians, nothing. It is an act of terrorism and a cold blood murder, thus crimimal, and the perpetrators should be brough to justice. whether be from U.S/Nato army, undividual or a gang group like AQ and co’s.


    Wallah, it’s chocking and disgusting to see that even some percentage of muslims of those countries have agreed to the killing of civilians, after all the Qur’an condemnation about the killing of civilians, it baffles me to see that any muslims when this question was ask straight up and in come manners like pollings dose, have answered that they would be okey with the killing of civilians…I guess they have forgotten all about the Quranic recomentations on the subject…May Allah help us all..

  21. sahra,

    so would it not have been justified for the japanesse to kill oppenheimer?


    cowards, we should take up the sword, and fight like it’s the 7th century, in the way of allah.

    anyway sahra do you not think that it would have been a good strategy for the japanesse to shot oppenheimer in the head? armed or not?

  23. why doesn’t allah send the angels like in the battle of badr? my father worked for honeywell in the space and strategic avionics division. i remember in 1987, he went to the war college in dc. he saw cockpit footage of egyptian migs up against our aircraft in the six days war. first day, the israelis would get radar lock on them, fire, hit the mig, and the egytian would eject. day two, the jews would get radar lock and the egytpian eject before the missle was even fired. day three, the israelis would get radar lock on them, fire, hit the mig, and the egytian would not eject.

  24. Dear all 1.3 Muslim terrorists, Islam will never prevail. Islam’s end is near. You all Muslims will soon pay with your blood. We all know what you are and what you do.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>