A Gallup Poll performed for the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks which provides more reason to question the stock Republican line that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. Gallup considers this view analogous to the Cold War view situation of an ideological struggle between capitalism and Communism. They found that support for terrorism was more motivated by political factors such as “occupation and U.S. domination” than religious fanaticism. They concluded that, “From many Muslims’ point of view, the conflict with West is about policy, not principles. Through Muslim eyes, it looks like a global civil rights struggle much more than another clash between superpowers.” In other words, their data shows that Ron Paul was right and Rudy Giuliani was wrong in their confrontation during an earlier Republican debate. Following is from Gallup’s analysis of the findings:
At the heart of the Cold War analogy is the belief that religious fanaticism fuels extremism and therefore replacing Muslims’ worldview with Western liberalism is the path to victory against terrorism. To begin to understand the danger of this diagnosis, we must first understand the factors that do and do not drive sympathy for violence.
As a starting point, Muslims do not hold a monopoly on extremist views. While 6% of Americans think attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified,” in both Lebanon and Iran, this figure is 2%, and in Saudi Arabia, it’s 4%. In Europe, Muslims in Paris and London were no more likely than were their counterparts in the general public to believe attacks on civilians are ever justified and at least as likely to reject violence, even for a “noble cause.”
After analyzing survey data representing more than 90% of the global Muslim population, Gallup found that despite widespread anti-American sentiment, only a small minority saw the 9/11 attacks as morally justified. Even more significant, there was no correlation between level of religiosity and extremism among respondents. Among the 7% of the population that fits in the politically radicalized category — those who saw the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States — 94% said religion is an important part of their daily lives, compared with 90% among those in the moderate majority. And no significant difference exists between radicals and moderates in mosque attendance.
Gallup probed respondents further and actually asked both those who condoned and condemned extremist acts why they said what they did. The responses fly in the face of conventional wisdom. For example, in Indonesia, the largest Muslim majority country in the world, many of those who condemned terrorism cited humanitarian or religious justifications to support their response. For example, one woman said, “Killing one life is as sinful as killing the whole world,” paraphrasing verse 5:32 in the Quran.
On the other hand, not a single respondent in Indonesia who condoned the attacks of 9/11 cited the Quran for justification. Instead, this group’s responses were markedly secular and worldly. For example, one Indonesian respondent said, “The U.S. government is too controlling toward other countries, seems like colonizing.”
The real difference between those who condone terrorist acts and all others is about politics, not piety. For example, the politically radicalized often cite “occupation and U.S. domination” as their greatest fear for their country and only a small minority of them agree the United States would allow people in the region to fashion their own political future or that it is serious about supporting democracy in the region. Also, among this group’s top responses was the view that to better relations with the Muslim world, the West should respect Islam and stop imposing its beliefs and policies. In contrast, moderates most often mentioned economic problems as their greatest fear for their country, and along with respecting Islam, they see economic support and investments as a way for the West to better relations. Moderates are also more likely than the politically radicalized to say the United States is serious about promoting democracy.
While the politically radicalized are as likely as the moderate majority to say better relations with the West is of personal concern to them, they are much less likely to believe the West reciprocates this concern and therefore much less likely to believe improved relations will ever come. In short, perceptions of being under siege characterize those who sympathize with extremism.




I don’t think that is the stock republican line because I am a republican I don’t support that view. Don’t build a straw man argument by claiming that is the stock republican line. It may be a good sound bite for politicians, but everybody realizes that the politics of the middle east is much more complex than that. But it is at least partially true. In Malaysia, supposedly a moderate/tolerant muslim nation, they won’t even let citizens choose their religion…wasn’t that a court ruling a few months back? So I am pretty sure that it irritates them that westerners can choose to hold whatever religious views they want and to rip religion whenever they feel like it. Remember the Dutch filmaker who was murdered for being anti-muslim? It seems like somebody hated him for his speech. Are you saying he was killed because of some american or western foreign policy? And what about the whole mulsim cartoon thing? Was that about freedom of speech or was it about western foreign policy?
“I don’t think that is the stock republican line because I am a republican I don’t support that view. Don’t build a straw man argument by claiming that is the stock republican line.”
I’m not saying all Republicans believe this, so don’t claim that a strawman argument is being made when you are misrepresenting what I’ve written.
The article linked to goes into the how things such as the Muslim cartoon issue fit into the author’s model.
Saying something is the stock republican line is pretty much the equivalent of saying that most republicans hold that view. I don’t think most republicans hold that view. I think just about everybody understands that the politics of the middle east are very complex. I don’t think I misrepresented what you said. IF you didn’t mean that most republicans hold that view, then distinguish your comments. Say the common republican view. Stock means standard.
“Saying something is the stock republican line is pretty much the equivalent of saying that most republicans hold that view.”
No it does not mean this. This is the line we are hearing from from the Republican candidates (other than Paul), and they sure jumped on Paul for saying this was not true.
Then say “republican candidates.” Ron Paul is a dumb ass. He isn’t a real republican because he doesn’t support the war. They shouldn’t let that loon-ball debate with the others.
That last comment about Ron Paul was mostly a joke…so don’t try to debate it.