Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

No, you got the wrong one. I'm talking of the one that's OUTSIDE of your arse.

We are caught between the government bombing and the armed groups,” said a Sunni religious leader in Fallujah, referring to the Islamic State militants. Like other residents, he spoke anonymously for security reasons.

Issawi said the local council is attempting to organize a safe exit for civilians, but residents argue that there is no way out. Other officials said Islamic State fighters have cut off exits from Fallujah.

“There’s a state of terror,” a 29-year-old resident said. “We know there will be an assault, we want to leave, but Islamic State doesn’t let anyone leave. They want to use us as human shields. Local officials say about 50,000 civilians remain.

No idea what you're talking about, Roger.

not to mention the functionality of the device I'm using to access the Internet -- fluctuates while also covarying with my internal states. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.

Pretty interesting Pakistan has the least unfavorable response.

Then why has the number of Islamic terrorism incidents soared since drone strikes began, both in the countries where drone strikes occurred and elsewhere in the world?

I see that I neglected to provide the link to a quote in one of my previous replies to oralloy. I'll rectify that now:

"15 March 2013 – The United States' ongoing drone campaign in Pakistan is a violation of the South Asian nation's sovereignty, as it is being conducted without the consent of its elected representatives or that of the legitimate Government, a United Nations independent expert has warned."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44397

The Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor (which in any case was a purely military target);

the Japanese military government attacked Pearl Harbor. So how were popular calls to bomb the Japs back to the Stone Age reasonable or moral?

As for what the Muslims are reacting to (and by "Muslims of today" you presumably refer to groups like al Qaeda which the majority of Muslims regard as impious murderers),

consider what Osama bin Laden cited in his 1996 "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans":

"More than six hundred thousand Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine as a result of your unjustifiable and aggressive sanctions imposed on Iraq. and its nation. Iraqi children are our children. You (America), together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."

UNICEF seems to agree about the numbers and cause:

"Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." "

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

Now of course, to this it should be added that two wrongs don't make a right, that you can't do good by doing evil, that there are several important distinctions between sanctions targeting the regime of Saddam Hussein and the actions of (for example) the 9/11 attackers. One might also question the sincerity of this concern as expressed by bin Laden.

But there are several important observations to be had from all this.
First, blanket references to the sins of "Muslims" are just as morally undiscriminating as references to the sins of "Americans".

Second, the willingness to blithely dismiss the deaths of civilians as acceptable "collateral damage" of military operations (that are largely cosmetic anyway) is disturbingly similar to the arguments used by terrorists in attacking civilians as military targets as the Paris attackers did (much like the British in the Second World War in their use of terror bombing to undermine German morale). Bombs are bombs, and dead civilians are just as dead either way.

Third, at some point it becomes more important to break the cycle of violence than to argue about who started it.

I would hate to have to argue against Native American terrorists attempting to regain their land and arguing that Europeans started it.

Terrorist incidents have skyrocketed since the so-called war on terror was declared and since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you and others like you are talking about invading Syria, and Iraq again too.

As long as U.S. military actions are seen through the prism of geopolitics or war game strategies, and as long as all those civilian casualties are written off as statistics on a collateral damage chart, I don't see how this is possible.

Somebody has to break the cycle of violence by being BETTER than the other side. If the United States can't see its way to being better for moral reasons, it might at least do so for practical reasons.

But I'm afraid that the habit of demonizing entire peoples in response to the actions of their governments or of groups unilaterally claiming to act for them, is not a habit of Muslims alone. We often speak of the Judeo-Christian tradition, though it's difficult to imagine Jesus approving of the callously inflicted deaths of innocents carried out in the name of a civilization representing this tradition. One also wonders whether those who bombed the King David Hotel that killed 91 were acting within this tradition. Among the psalms popularly attributed to King David, there is one that shocks the modern reader:

"...happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who dashes your little ones against the rocks."

Perhaps it is time to try something truly radical now that militarism has failed yet again:

follow the Golden Rule and treat the noncombatant inhabitants of foreign cities as we would be treated.

Stop trying to minimize, justify, and euphemise reflexive military responses that are known in advance will kill many civilians and are not even effective in accomplishing strategic goals.

Stop invading other countries, treating their citizens like potential terrorists and little brown monkeys, then asking why anti-American attitudes are so prevalent among them.

arget if Japan had attacked us after declaring war. However, they attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war.